Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Dec 08, 2019 5:05 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 765 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:19 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Amerika
MungoMan wrote:
redhouse wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Quote:
Burden of proof lies on you to provide evidence that it is not good for society as a whole.


No point with you lot


Oh hey, it's the guy who wishes genocide upon $300 million people.

Enz is hardly the only one happy to see folk with $300 million sent on a one-way train trip


Those who claim to want to protect people sure would like to see a lot of harm done to them. The mods on here ok with this kind of talk?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5497
Location: The void
redhouse wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
redhouse wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Quote:
Burden of proof lies on you to provide evidence that it is not good for society as a whole.


No point with you lot


Oh hey, it's the guy who wishes genocide upon $300 million people.

Enz is hardly the only one happy to see folk with $300 million sent on a one-way train trip


Those who claim to want to protect people sure would like to see a lot of harm done to them. The mods on here ok with this kind of talk?

Enz is an Ultra mod who has all the codez. Be careful!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18159
Location: End of the road, turn right and first house on the left
redhouse wrote:
MungoMan wrote:
redhouse wrote:
Enzedder wrote:
Quote:
Burden of proof lies on you to provide evidence that it is not good for society as a whole.


No point with you lot


Oh hey, it's the guy who wishes genocide upon $300 million people.

Enz is hardly the only one happy to see folk with $300 million sent on a one-way train trip


Those who claim to want to protect people sure would like to see a lot of harm done to them. The mods on here ok with this kind of talk?



Hey, I'm trolling a troll and surely that is allowed.

In your case; crap out - crap in


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 12:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49109
Location: Dirty Leeds
redhouse wrote:
La soule wrote:
Makes sense. It must be very difficult to find sites that discuss guns in the US.


I know you are going to find this extremely hard to believe, but I am not a big gun person. So joining a gun forum is not on my list of things to do. I own one pistol for home defense and then one rifle for maybe once a year target shooting. I do have my concealed carry license, but never carry. I will only bring my pistol with me when I am going on long road trips and I know I will be able to safely store it somewhere.

In a perfect world no one will have guns or harm others. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and everyone has a right to defend themselves. If you think it's wrong to own a gun, fine, don't own a gun, but don't take someone else's right away from them.

This pistol you carry for self defence, where is it kept?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9042
Some research on mass shootings in the US:

1. Not becoming more common.
2. Race of shooter reflects racial make-up of the US population.
3. Something about mental health.
4. Something else.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconvers ... ers-121471

Based on 2, white supremacist mass shootings will become a reducing threat as the white population decreases. Therefore Shooters of Colour are the greatest risk group.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26135
Location: Chickenrunning...
earl the beaver wrote:
redhouse wrote:
La soule wrote:
Makes sense. It must be very difficult to find sites that discuss guns in the US.


I know you are going to find this extremely hard to believe, but I am not a big gun person. So joining a gun forum is not on my list of things to do. I own one pistol for home defense and then one rifle for maybe once a year target shooting. I do have my concealed carry license, but never carry. I will only bring my pistol with me when I am going on long road trips and I know I will be able to safely store it somewhere.

In a perfect world no one will have guns or harm others. Unfortunately we don't live in a perfect world and everyone has a right to defend themselves. If you think it's wrong to own a gun, fine, don't own a gun, but don't take someone else's right away from them.

This pistol you carry for self defence, where is it kept?


In his dreams


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49109
Location: Dirty Leeds
Santa wrote:
Some research on mass shootings in the US:

1. Not becoming more common.
2. Race of shooter reflects racial make-up of the US population.
3. Something about mental health.
4. Something else.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconvers ... ers-121471

Based on 2, white supremacist mass shootings will become a reducing threat as the white population decreases. Therefore Shooters of Colour are the greatest risk group.

Just because it's not getting worse doesn't mean it's a good thing ffs.

You want to cut the horrendous levels of gun violence in not just keep it level.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9042
earl the beaver wrote:
Santa wrote:
Some research on mass shootings in the US:

1. Not becoming more common.
2. Race of shooter reflects racial make-up of the US population.
3. Something about mental health.
4. Something else.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theconvers ... ers-121471

Based on 2, white supremacist mass shootings will become a reducing threat as the white population decreases. Therefore Shooters of Colour are the greatest risk group.

Just because it's not getting worse doesn't mean it's a good thing ffs.

You want to cut the horrendous levels of gun violence in not just keep it level.


I'm trying to see where I said it was a good thing but cannot find it. Can you please highlight it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 9:56 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49109
Location: Dirty Leeds
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1408
earl the beaver wrote:
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


It would make sense, if you take Alcohol for instance, the UK will have a bigger problem with Alcohol amongst the general population than some middle east countries..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1408
One thing that does surprise me is that a film company has changed it marketing strategy in light of the recent events, Considering the frequency of mass shooting in the US, this must surely have been a risk (or issue even) when the strategy was first devised.

It would be rather like devising a strategy for a multimillion dollar project that had to change if Ireland failed to get past the 1/4 final in the world cup.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36772250


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9042
earl the beaver wrote:
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


Interesting analysis but as they admit in the paper they don't have good data on gun origin (e.g. whether the guns were procured legally within the permissive states) which is the main causal connection between permissive laws and rates of mass shooting.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 26135
Location: Chickenrunning...
Santa wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


Interesting analysis but as they admit in the paper they don't have good data on gun origin (e.g. whether the guns were procured legally within the permissive states) which is the main causal connection between permissive laws and rates of mass shooting.


The disctinction doesn't make sense to me. If you bought an AR15 in Bolivia and took it back to Ohio, there's the same chance it could be used in a shooting if you bought it in Dayton itself. :?

Point of sale makes no difference in my mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 10:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9042
Sandstorm wrote:
Santa wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


Interesting analysis but as they admit in the paper they don't have good data on gun origin (e.g. whether the guns were procured legally within the permissive states) which is the main causal connection between permissive laws and rates of mass shooting.


The disctinction doesn't make sense to me. If you bought an AR15 in Bolivia and took it back to Ohio, there's the same chance it could be used in a shooting if you bought it in Dayton itself. :?

Point of sale makes no difference in my mind.


It makes a difference to inferred the cause. As the analysis currently stands the inference is that lax gun laws lead to more mass killings, which implies that in lax gun law states it is easier to obtain a gun with which to mass kill. But if the guns are being sourced illegally or out of state then the lax gun laws have nothing to do with the mass killings because the guns being used are not being acquired through the lax laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:26 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49109
Location: Dirty Leeds
Santa wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


Interesting analysis but as they admit in the paper they don't have good data on gun origin (e.g. whether the guns were procured legally within the permissive states) which is the main causal connection between permissive laws and rates of mass shooting.

Yeah I'm sure this all just coincidence that the states with the loosest gun laws have the most mass shootings. No correlation at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 11:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 6263
earl the beaver wrote:
Santa wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


Interesting analysis but as they admit in the paper they don't have good data on gun origin (e.g. whether the guns were procured legally within the permissive states) which is the main causal connection between permissive laws and rates of mass shooting.

Yeah I'm sure this all just coincidence that the states with the loosest gun laws have the most mass shootings. No correlation at all.



"Causation". The word you are looking for is causation. There's no tension between coincidence and correlation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:19 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4237
redhouse wrote:
puku wrote:
Yet the weapon of choice carried by police are Glocks. There are already restrictions to what guns the public can own here and I see absolutely no reason why a ban on military semi automatic assault rifles and high capacity magazines can not become law. Similar weapons were banned in the past.


Glocks, which are semi-autos. What's your point? Police are also highly trained and good marksmen.

We have already covered this. Military rifles are not sold to the public and the amount of ammo you can carry in one magazine has no effect on anything.

America used to have an Assault Weapon Ban under the Clinton administration from 1994-2004. Didn't do much of a difference back then. Matter of fact, Columbine happened with weapons that were banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban



Didn't make much of a difference....

Mass shootings with 4+ deaths from Sept 1994 to Sept 2004: 13 (1.3 per year)
Mass shootings with 4+ deaths from Sept 2004 to now: 95 (6.3 per year)

EDIT:

Mass shootings with 10+ deaths from Sept 1994 to Sept 2004: 1 (0.1 per year)
Mass shootings with 10+ deaths from Sept 2004 to now: 20 (1.3 per year)

No difference at all....


Last edited by 4071 on Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:33 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 444
earl the beaver wrote:
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


Also if a large city is surrounded by states that have weak gun laws, it is doomed to constant gun violence. See Chicago which is right next door to Indiana. Now Indiana is a state that barely has any gun laws. Chicago police have stated that most illegal guns used in Chicago come from neighboring states and counties with lax gun laws. Thus there is a proliferation of illegal guns because its so easy to get them.

New York city has a much lower incidence of gun violence because it us surrounded by Connecticut and New Jersey which neither has lax gun laws. Illegal guns coming to New York have to be brought from as far south as Virginia. T


Last edited by free_safety on Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 2:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4237
Santa wrote:
Sandstorm wrote:
Santa wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


Interesting analysis but as they admit in the paper they don't have good data on gun origin (e.g. whether the guns were procured legally within the permissive states) which is the main causal connection between permissive laws and rates of mass shooting.


The disctinction doesn't make sense to me. If you bought an AR15 in Bolivia and took it back to Ohio, there's the same chance it could be used in a shooting if you bought it in Dayton itself. :?

Point of sale makes no difference in my mind.


It makes a difference to inferred the cause. As the analysis currently stands the inference is that lax gun laws lead to more mass killings, which implies that in lax gun law states it is easier to obtain a gun with which to mass kill. But if the guns are being sourced illegally or out of state then the lax gun laws have nothing to do with the mass killings because the guns being used are not being acquired through the lax laws.


Ah, more hoop-jumping.

It's possible that in the states with the lax gun laws the people who commit the crimes are going to states with stricter gun laws in order to purchase the weapons. Because they like a challenge.

But is that the most likely explanation?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:43 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2049
Location: Down by the Riverside
msp. wrote:
One thing that does surprise me is that a film company has changed it marketing strategy in light of the recent events, Considering the frequency of mass shooting in the US, this must surely have been a risk (or issue even) when the strategy was first devised.

It would be rather like devising a strategy for a multimillion dollar project that had to change if Ireland failed to get past the 1/4 final in the world cup.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-36772250


Film company changing marketing strategy
Its risk-taking based on US mass shootings
A multimillion dollar project changing if Irish rugby fails.

I know I can get this if I really try hard.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:19 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Amerika
4071 wrote:
redhouse wrote:
puku wrote:
Yet the weapon of choice carried by police are Glocks. There are already restrictions to what guns the public can own here and I see absolutely no reason why a ban on military semi automatic assault rifles and high capacity magazines can not become law. Similar weapons were banned in the past.


Glocks, which are semi-autos. What's your point? Police are also highly trained and good marksmen.

We have already covered this. Military rifles are not sold to the public and the amount of ammo you can carry in one magazine has no effect on anything.

America used to have an Assault Weapon Ban under the Clinton administration from 1994-2004. Didn't do much of a difference back then. Matter of fact, Columbine happened with weapons that were banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban



Didn't make much of a difference....

Mass shootings with 4+ deaths from Sept 1994 to Sept 2004: 13 (1.3 per year)
Mass shootings with 4+ deaths from Sept 2004 to now: 95 (6.3 per year)

EDIT:

Mass shootings with 10+ deaths from Sept 1994 to Sept 2004: 1 (0.1 per year)
Mass shootings with 10+ deaths from Sept 2004 to now: 20 (1.3 per year)

No difference at all....


"From 1982 to 1994 (12 years), there were 19 shootings, an average of 1.5 shootings a year."
"From September 1994 to September 2004—the duration of the Assault Weapons Ban—there were 15 mass shootings over 10 years; again, an average of 1.5 a year."

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the- ... shootings/


https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-t ... -ban-work/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 3:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1408
Great thing about stats is you can show what you want especially if you work on the definition of mass shooting,,


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9042
4071 wrote:
Santa wrote:
Sandstorm wrote:
Santa wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
The looser a state's gun laws the more mass shootings it has - https://www.wired.com/story/the-looser- ... gs-it-has/


Interesting analysis but as they admit in the paper they don't have good data on gun origin (e.g. whether the guns were procured legally within the permissive states) which is the main causal connection between permissive laws and rates of mass shooting.


The disctinction doesn't make sense to me. If you bought an AR15 in Bolivia and took it back to Ohio, there's the same chance it could be used in a shooting if you bought it in Dayton itself. :?

Point of sale makes no difference in my mind.


It makes a difference to inferred the cause. As the analysis currently stands the inference is that lax gun laws lead to more mass killings, which implies that in lax gun law states it is easier to obtain a gun with which to mass kill. But if the guns are being sourced illegally or out of state then the lax gun laws have nothing to do with the mass killings because the guns being used are not being acquired through the lax laws.


Ah, more hoop-jumping.

It's possible that in the states with the lax gun laws the people who commit the crimes are going to states with stricter gun laws in order to purchase the weapons. Because they like a challenge.

But is that the most likely explanation?


It's not hoop jumping you utter f.ucking dullard. It's a data issue. If you haven't got the data to demonstrate causation you can't demonstrate it. The paper's authors understand and acknowledge that. Are they wrong?

Honestly you bellends who go on about the right being anti-science are worse hypocrites than Bill Cosby and at the end of the day the worst thing about Bill Cosby was the hypocrisy. Ignoring the raping of course.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 2049
Location: Down by the Riverside
Typical to see these bell-end, right-wing sados arguing about who has the best statistics.
No effective proposals how to end gun mayhem.

While the next prick who is going to shoot up some US school or neighbourhood is working out where its easiest to get the best weapon.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1408
Whilst the origin of the guns cannot be established, you would assume the most people get their gun from the easiest source. i.e. if you live in Nevada (with lax rules) you going to buy your gun there rather than travel to New York or Bolivia to buy one their a take it home.

If I want to but a bottle of wine, I will tend to go to the local shop rather than drive to Spain.. Although I have never done stats on where I bought my wine..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:23 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1408
Trostan wrote:
Typical to see these bell-end, right-wing sados arguing about who has the best statistics.
No effective proposals how to end gun mayhem.

While the next prick who is going to shoot up some US school or neighbourhood is working out where its easiest to get the best weapon.


The next shooter probably already got their weapon.. the red flags prob have already been raised, but he (as an aside has there ever been a female mass shooter) will keep his guns..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9042
msp. wrote:
Great thing about stats is you can show what you want especially if you work on the definition of mass shooting,,


No you can't. You can only show whatever you want if you don't do the stats properly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 4:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 49109
Location: Dirty Leeds
redhouse wrote:
4071 wrote:
redhouse wrote:
puku wrote:
Yet the weapon of choice carried by police are Glocks. There are already restrictions to what guns the public can own here and I see absolutely no reason why a ban on military semi automatic assault rifles and high capacity magazines can not become law. Similar weapons were banned in the past.


Glocks, which are semi-autos. What's your point? Police are also highly trained and good marksmen.

We have already covered this. Military rifles are not sold to the public and the amount of ammo you can carry in one magazine has no effect on anything.

America used to have an Assault Weapon Ban under the Clinton administration from 1994-2004. Didn't do much of a difference back then. Matter of fact, Columbine happened with weapons that were banned.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_A ... eapons_Ban



Didn't make much of a difference....

Mass shootings with 4+ deaths from Sept 1994 to Sept 2004: 13 (1.3 per year)
Mass shootings with 4+ deaths from Sept 2004 to now: 95 (6.3 per year)

EDIT:

Mass shootings with 10+ deaths from Sept 1994 to Sept 2004: 1 (0.1 per year)
Mass shootings with 10+ deaths from Sept 2004 to now: 20 (1.3 per year)

No difference at all....


"From 1982 to 1994 (12 years), there were 19 shootings, an average of 1.5 shootings a year."
"From September 1994 to September 2004—the duration of the Assault Weapons Ban—there were 15 mass shootings over 10 years; again, an average of 1.5 a year."

https://tcf.org/content/commentary/the- ... shootings/


https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-t ... -ban-work/

19 divided by 12 is 1.6 to 1 decimal place, not 1.5

Funny how you ignore the bit post 2004 though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:19 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Amerika
earl the beaver wrote:
19 divided by 12 is 1.6 to 1 decimal place, not 1.5

Funny how you ignore the bit post 2004 though.


Didn't ignore shit, left the other person's stats in my response. Christ, you guys are really getting desperate when arguing hundredth decimals points being big changes.

In a 12 year period before the ban: 1.58
In a 10 year period during the ban: 1.5
In a 15 year period after the ban: 6.3 (unknown source from another post)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 9:32 pm
Posts: 3588
Location: look behind you
:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:43 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16968
redhouse wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
19 divided by 12 is 1.6 to 1 decimal place, not 1.5

Funny how you ignore the bit post 2004 though.


Didn't ignore shit, left the other person's stats in my response. Christ, you guys are really getting desperate when arguing hundredth decimals points being big changes.

In a 12 year period before the ban: 1.58
In a 10 year period during the ban: 1.5
In a 15 year period after the ban: 6.3 (unknown source from another post)


So during the ban, a statistically insignificant drop in mass shootings. After the ban, a 300% increase. Better ban video games, that’ll obviously work better.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1354
Location: Canadian Tundra
A majority of American citizens prefer more and more frequent mass shootings in their communities over limiting their guns rights / stricter gun laws.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 14225
Location: We'll Never Forget You Geordan D'Arcy
If I lived in Trumpistan I reckon I'd cherish the right to bear arms.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 5:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4237
DOB wrote:
redhouse wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
19 divided by 12 is 1.6 to 1 decimal place, not 1.5

Funny how you ignore the bit post 2004 though.


Didn't ignore shit, left the other person's stats in my response. Christ, you guys are really getting desperate when arguing hundredth decimals points being big changes.

In a 12 year period before the ban: 1.58
In a 10 year period during the ban: 1.5
In a 15 year period after the ban: 6.3 (unknown source from another post)


So during the ban, a statistically insignificant drop in mass shootings. After the ban, a 300% increase. Better ban video games, that’ll obviously work better.


Also bear in mind that any assault weapons that were owned before the ban could still be legally owned. So there would have been no decrease in the number of assault weapons in circulation as a result of the ban (hence only a small drop in mass shootings), all it would have done is prevent the number increasing.

Once the ban expired, however....


Still, it's probably video games.



EDIT: I'd also mention the effectiveness of the mass shootings. As I mentioned, during the decade-long ban there was only one mass shooting with 10 or more victims killed.

In that 12 year period, which has 1.6 mass shootings per year as opposed to 1.5, nine of those masssacres claimed 10+ victims.


Additionally, I counted 26 shootings with 4 or more killed from 1982-1994. Which is more than 2 per year, not 1.6 per year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4237
Santa wrote:
4071 wrote:
Santa wrote:
Sandstorm wrote:
Santa wrote:
Interesting analysis but as they admit in the paper they don't have good data on gun origin (e.g. whether the guns were procured legally within the permissive states) which is the main causal connection between permissive laws and rates of mass shooting.


The disctinction doesn't make sense to me. If you bought an AR15 in Bolivia and took it back to Ohio, there's the same chance it could be used in a shooting if you bought it in Dayton itself. :?

Point of sale makes no difference in my mind.


It makes a difference to inferred the cause. As the analysis currently stands the inference is that lax gun laws lead to more mass killings, which implies that in lax gun law states it is easier to obtain a gun with which to mass kill. But if the guns are being sourced illegally or out of state then the lax gun laws have nothing to do with the mass killings because the guns being used are not being acquired through the lax laws.


Ah, more hoop-jumping.

It's possible that in the states with the lax gun laws the people who commit the crimes are going to states with stricter gun laws in order to purchase the weapons. Because they like a challenge.

But is that the most likely explanation?


It's not hoop jumping you utter f.ucking dullard. It's a data issue. If you haven't got the data to demonstrate causation you can't demonstrate it. The paper's authors understand and acknowledge that. Are they wrong?

Honestly you bellends who go on about the right being anti-science are worse hypocrites than Bill Cosby and at the end of the day the worst thing about Bill Cosby was the hypocrisy. Ignoring the raping of course.


They mention the flaw in their methodology to explain why some states with strict gun laws may be seeing higher rates of shootings, as guns can be legally purchased elsewhere and brought in. Which is exactly the opposite of what you were implying, you mendacious little fuckstick.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:19 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Amerika
DOB wrote:
redhouse wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
19 divided by 12 is 1.6 to 1 decimal place, not 1.5

Funny how you ignore the bit post 2004 though.


Didn't ignore shit, left the other person's stats in my response. Christ, you guys are really getting desperate when arguing hundredth decimals points being big changes.

In a 12 year period before the ban: 1.58
In a 10 year period during the ban: 1.5
In a 15 year period after the ban: 6.3 (unknown source from another post)


So during the ban, a statistically insignificant drop in mass shootings. After the ban, a 300% increase. Better ban video games, that’ll obviously work better.


No one read the actual report of findings that I linked to, notice how no one is mentioning that.

If a weapons ban was the cause of the spike during the years after the ban, wouldn't you expect to have seen a spike going the other way then?

The video game thing is ridiculous. Rugby world rankings started in 2004, perhaps USAs low rankings got everyone triggered. BAN RUGBY


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4237
redhouse wrote:
DOB wrote:
redhouse wrote:
earl the beaver wrote:
19 divided by 12 is 1.6 to 1 decimal place, not 1.5

Funny how you ignore the bit post 2004 though.


Didn't ignore shit, left the other person's stats in my response. Christ, you guys are really getting desperate when arguing hundredth decimals points being big changes.

In a 12 year period before the ban: 1.58
In a 10 year period during the ban: 1.5
In a 15 year period after the ban: 6.3 (unknown source from another post)


So during the ban, a statistically insignificant drop in mass shootings. After the ban, a 300% increase. Better ban video games, that’ll obviously work better.


No one read the actual report of findings that I linked to, notice how no one is mentioning that.

If a weapons ban was the cause of the spike during the years after the ban, wouldn't you expect to have seen a spike going the other way then?

The video game thing is ridiculous. Rugby world rankings started in 2004, perhaps USAs low rankings got everyone triggered.


No. And they explain why in the report.

Go read it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 1127
Location: Saint Paul
Santa wrote:
msp. wrote:
Great thing about stats is you can show what you want especially if you work on the definition of mass shooting,,


No you can't. You can only show whatever you want if you don't do the stats properly.


Don't you have a graduate degree from Oxford or Cambridge? The starting point is not the statistical test you use to test the question, although granted the wrong statistical test can be used, but how you assign data to the groups you want to compare. So in that regard msp is very much correct, you "bellend"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:11 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2018 4:19 pm
Posts: 107
Location: Amerika
Santa wrote:
Honestly you bellends who go on about the right being anti-science are worse hypocrites than Bill Cosby and at the end of the day the worst thing about Bill Cosby was the hypocrisy. Ignoring the raping of course.


Norm Macdonald sneak.

So true though, they are what they accuse others of being. I believe they call that "projecting".


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:46 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 9042
4071 wrote:
They mention the flaw in their methodology to explain why some states with strict gun laws may be seeing higher rates of shootings, as guns can be legally purchased elsewhere and brought in. Which is exactly the opposite of what you were implying, you mendacious little fuckstick.


From the paper itself

Quote:
There are several limitations to our study. Our study design incorporated a time series component, lagged variables, and multiple covariate adjustment strategies, and was primarily able to show broad associations between state gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings. The potential for omitted variable biases and reverse causation remain and future analyses are encouraged to build on our work by testing the before-and-after effects of enactment or repeal of gun laws in specific states, or both, alongside appropriately matched control states.

...

Despite this, improved reporting systems for mass shootings, including better tracking of whether mass shooters legally possessed their firearms or crossed state lines to obtain their weapons, or both, are needed to further improve the accuracy and detail of future analyses.


https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542

And from the Wired article

Quote:
The associations are strong, though Reeping shies away from suggesting any causality in the data. “There’s so much going on and we can’t control for everything,” he says.


You dumb f.cking c.unthead.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 765 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], Jay Cee Gee, Jensrsa, Kiwias, Peaches, rett, Rowdy, Wilderbeast and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group