RE: The Gun Control divide (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

The Gun Control divide


I despise you and your poll.
  19% (5)
I need a weapon so I can defend my family from others and tyranny.
  15% (4)
I need a weapon so I can defend my family from tyranny.
  0% (0)
I need a weapon so I can defend my family from others.
  0% (0)
I don't need a good reason for owning a gun. It's my right.
  26% (7)
Weapon access causes harm, individual rights wins because Constitution
  3% (1)
Weapon access causes societal harm which trumps individual rights
  26% (7)
Access to weapons does not cause societal harm
  7% (2)


Total Votes : 26
(last vote on : 6/19/2016 9:25:06 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


Awareness -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 9:34:44 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

More parroting of the NRA Kool-Aid instead of any actual research.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

So your big results that I'm drinking koolaide is this:

"Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."


http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

"A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. "




Nnanji -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:12:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

More parroting of the NRA Kool-Aid instead of any actual research.

http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/

So your big results that I'm drinking koolaide is this:

"Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."


http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1661390

"A higher number of firearm laws in a state are associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state, overall and for suicides and homicides individually. "


Your JAMA study says this:
"The real question is not about the number of firearm laws but whether the laws ultimately safeguard the citizens they are intended to protect. Although multiple studies have examined the relationship between federal and state firearm laws and homicide and suicide rates, the overall association between firearm legislation and firearm mortality is uncertain and remains controversial.7,8"





Nnanji -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:19:06 AM)

It also is full of stuff like this:

"In an analysis of all states using data from 2007 through 2010, we found that a higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state. This association was present both before and after controlling for other state-specific and socioeconomic factors. Although the results across quartiles 2 through 4 of the legislative strength score demonstrated lower firearm fatalities, these results were only significant when the states with the highest scores were compared with those with the lowest scores. It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship."




Nnanji -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:21:49 AM)

So basically, you googled something and didn't read it I order to make an implied point. Because, your link certainly doesn't prove any implication you presented.




Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:23:38 AM)

And yet, selective statistics pairing without establishing cause and effect is the entire NRA case.




WickedsDesire -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:23:40 AM)

the only verified person on these forums is me and it is the realm of lying cunts idiots 100%, other than ,me




Awareness -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:23:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

It also is full of stuff like this:

"In an analysis of all states using data from 2007 through 2010, we found that a higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state. This association was present both before and after controlling for other state-specific and socioeconomic factors. Although the results across quartiles 2 through 4 of the legislative strength score demonstrated lower firearm fatalities, these results were only significant when the states with the highest scores were compared with those with the lowest scores. It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship."
That's absolutely correct, but the wonder is that they were able to find a difference at all. States are not isolated, their borders are porous, which means that people from other states still travel in and out of the state. Nonetheless there is a correlation between the presence of strong gun control legislation and reduced firearm fatalities. Putting another nail in the coffin of the NRA's lunatic claim that gun control won't reduce homicides and will actually increase them.




WhoreMods -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:26:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

the only verified person on these forums is me and it is the realm of lying cunts idiots 100%, other than ,me

Really? You should have mentioned it before.




Awareness -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:27:31 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

So basically, you googled something and didn't read it I order to make an implied point. Because, your link certainly doesn't prove any implication you presented.
No, I didn't google anything and even if I did, who cares? Second, the point is that even in the USA - which the NRA and their weak-minded proxies claim is SO different that the gun control would never work - we already see evidence that gun control DOES work even if the mechanisms for the correlation are not clear.

I'm sure your next response will be to proclaim the American Medical Association to be a bunch of leftist fascists.




mrevibo -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:27:35 AM)

Ok, active hostiles, let's see, we have blacks, many of whom have been stirred up for generations by whichever "leaders" for whatever reasons about slavery, which hasn't been a thing for 150 years here. They make speeches, print literature, have riots, and in many cases commit crimes such as "polar bear hunting" or "the knockout game", all the while saying in so many words that they hate whitey. We have Hispanics, primarily from Mexico, who join "La Raza" (the race) and make no secret of their intention to claim part of our territory by whatever means necessary. Then there are the radical Muslims, who just up and kill people in the largest numbers possible because our way of life offends them. Yes, you have some of these in Europe, and look what's already happening. Death tolls in France and Belgium, riots in Paris with burning cars every year, Stockholm as the rape capitol of the world, etc. Do you expect this to get better with tens of thousands more of them there?

Neither am I equivocating on the leveling of the playing field. Intention is always the key. You would be right if my intention in arming myself was to be a vigilante. That would weight the dice in my favor. However, that's not a phenomenon you see on a regular basis. You could bet your last zorkmid the anti-gun press would be on that like stink on... themselves, and when was the last time you heard of it?

The statistics I have seen from England, Australia, and the US show me that violent crime has increased in both England and Australia since their bans, and even gun crime is up in England despite the ban. Gun violence is far down in the US over the last couple of decades, not just a statistical subtlety but bleeding obviously, especially as the numbers of firearms and legal carriers have increased at a record pace. And having more gun laws causes fewer gun fatalities? Try to sell that one in Chicago. They've done their level best to prevent any gun ownership at all, there, while their murder rate placed them above Iraq in gun fatalities. They don't call it Chiraq fer nothin'.




Nnanji -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:28:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

It also is full of stuff like this:

"In an analysis of all states using data from 2007 through 2010, we found that a higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state. This association was present both before and after controlling for other state-specific and socioeconomic factors. Although the results across quartiles 2 through 4 of the legislative strength score demonstrated lower firearm fatalities, these results were only significant when the states with the highest scores were compared with those with the lowest scores. It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship."
That's absolutely correct, but the wonder is that they were able to find a difference at all. States are not isolated, their borders are porous, which means that people from other states still travel in and out of the state. Nonetheless there is a correlation between the presence of strong gun control legislation and reduced firearm fatalities. Putting another nail in the coffin of the NRA's lunatic claim that gun control won't reduce homicides and will actually increase them.


Well, I guess if you ignore everything the study actually says, including this:


"Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."


You could make that assumption.




Awareness -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:29:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

the only verified person on these forums is me and it is the realm of lying cunts idiots 100%, other than ,me

Really? You should have mentioned it before.
He has. Multiple times. He's into solipsism in a big way.




Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:29:50 AM)

I read as far as you equating gangs with all blacks and stopped wasting my time there.




Nnanji -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:30:05 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

So basically, you googled something and didn't read it I order to make an implied point. Because, your link certainly doesn't prove any implication you presented.
No, I didn't google anything and even if I did, who cares? Second, the point is that even in the USA - which the NRA and their weak-minded proxies claim is SO different that the gun control would never work - we already see evidence that gun control DOES work even if the mechanisms for the correlation are not clear.

I'm sure your next response will be to proclaim the American Medical Association to be a bunch of leftist fascists.


I'm glad you're sure...not what my actual real "next" response was above.




Awareness -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:33:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

It also is full of stuff like this:

"In an analysis of all states using data from 2007 through 2010, we found that a higher number of firearm laws in a state was associated with a lower rate of firearm fatalities in the state. This association was present both before and after controlling for other state-specific and socioeconomic factors. Although the results across quartiles 2 through 4 of the legislative strength score demonstrated lower firearm fatalities, these results were only significant when the states with the highest scores were compared with those with the lowest scores. It is important to note that our study was ecological and cross-sectional and could not determine cause-and-effect relationship."
That's absolutely correct, but the wonder is that they were able to find a difference at all. States are not isolated, their borders are porous, which means that people from other states still travel in and out of the state. Nonetheless there is a correlation between the presence of strong gun control legislation and reduced firearm fatalities. Putting another nail in the coffin of the NRA's lunatic claim that gun control won't reduce homicides and will actually increase them.


Well, I guess if you ignore everything the study actually says, including this:


"Koper, Jan. 14: What we found in these studies was that the ban had mixed effects in reducing crimes with the banned weaponry due to various exemptions that were written into the law. And as a result, the ban did not appear to effect gun violence during the time it was in effect. But there is some evidence to suggest that it may have modestly reduced shootings had it been in effect for a longer period."


You could make that assumption.
You're quoting the report evaluating the assault weapons ban which has absolutely fucking nothing to do with the study I referenced you fucking idiot.





Awareness -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:34:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

So basically, you googled something and didn't read it I order to make an implied point. Because, your link certainly doesn't prove any implication you presented.
No, I didn't google anything and even if I did, who cares? Second, the point is that even in the USA - which the NRA and their weak-minded proxies claim is SO different that the gun control would never work - we already see evidence that gun control DOES work even if the mechanisms for the correlation are not clear.

I'm sure your next response will be to proclaim the American Medical Association to be a bunch of leftist fascists.


I'm glad you're sure...not what my actual real "next" response was above.
No, it was equally idiotic though, so I'm chalking it up as a win.




WhoreMods -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:34:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Awareness


quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods


quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

the only verified person on these forums is me and it is the realm of lying cunts idiots 100%, other than ,me

Really? You should have mentioned it before.
He has. Multiple times. He's into solipsism in a big way.


Do they not do sarcasm where you come from?




Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:36:13 AM)

Your mistake was analogy/metaphor . . .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svtLfoGH19c




WickedsDesire -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:40:29 AM)

The only verified person exiting on these forums is me..a prefect fake is everyone else




Musicmystery -> RE: The Gun Control divide (6/15/2016 10:43:09 AM)

I think you missed that exit.




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625