I am sure this whole deal is multifactorial enough to make all of our heads spin. There is probably some cool statistical wankery that can help disentangle some of it, machine-learning has really upped the level of wankery possible, but I don't understand any of it.
Trump supporters, how do you square this?
- Thread starter CP87
- Start date
I am sure this whole deal is multifactorial enough to make all of our heads spin. There is probably some cool statistical wankery that can help disentangle some of it, machine-learning has really upped the level of wankery possible, but I don't understand any of it.
The data from Australia that @Westernhawk posted suggests that total murder does go down. Guns are uniquely lethal, easy to use, and safe for the killer in a way that stabbings and bombs just cannot match. If you want to kill someone badly enough, you will find a way, guns or no. But some killings are a combination of the heat of the moment and the ready accessibility of one of the best killing tools man has devised.
The B1G doesn't do murders as well as the SEC?
edit: no disrespect to the Mountain West Conference, they are also elite
The Second Amendment is wild.
Neal Brennan standup about gun control. From 'Blocks' on Netflix. Watch 'Blocks' on Netflix: https://www.netflix.com/title/81036234#comedy #standup #standupc...
www.youtube.com
I've owned one hand gun for four years and shot it once. I don't even have a dog in the fight. It's not like I'm some gun junkie who couldn't live without them. I've also ate two weed gummies in my entire life. That's the extent of my drug use. But I'm a firm believer that a war on guns would work about as well as the war on drugs have.
Sure overall gun murders would probably fall, just like overall drug use is probably lower than it would be if drugs were legal. But what are the consequences and are they worth it? The drugs people do use are no doubt more deadly than they would be if regulated. All the gang violence associated with drug dealing would be virtually wiped out. Cartel issues would be way down.
I'm not saying the overall bad would be better if drugs were legal. But I am saying there are pros and cons, and once you dive into those it's a lot closer than one would originally think. I'm also not saying things wouldn't for sure be overall better if we took away guns. I'm just saying there are a shit ton of variables that some people don't bother to consider.
Sure overall gun murders would probably fall, just like overall drug use is probably lower than it would be if drugs were legal. But what are the consequences and are they worth it? The drugs people do use are no doubt more deadly than they would be if regulated. All the gang violence associated with drug dealing would be virtually wiped out. Cartel issues would be way down.
I'm not saying the overall bad would be better if drugs were legal. But I am saying there are pros and cons, and once you dive into those it's a lot closer than one would originally think. I'm also not saying things wouldn't for sure be overall better if we took away guns. I'm just saying there are a shit ton of variables that some people don't bother to consider.
One person's logic is another person's lack of thinking skills.
Westernhawk
Well-Known Member
Yes! And we have been talking about mass shootings and school shootings here. A knife just ain't gonna cut it, so to speak.
Westernhawk
Well-Known Member
Does it detect gold medals, or just silver and bronze?
Only in America would we think the best solution is metal detectors and armed guards in grade schools. Kind of a sad place to be. You're probably one of the same people who think we should defund education, while also wanting to staff every school with armed guards.
Since we're at it, do you have every single person come in through one entrance only? Or do you have lots of armed guards at multiple entrances, with metal detectors at every entrance? Jesus H Christ. Good times.
Westernhawk
Well-Known Member
Drug use and mass shootings are different issues. But nice "whataboutism." You've been trained well, I guess.
Please stop saying that stupid word. For one it's the dumbest word ever created. For two you're using it wrong. Whataboutism is used to belittle someone who's calling out hypocrisy. Not for when someone makes an analogy.
Westernhawk
Well-Known Member
Is the school large or small? Really large schools would be challenged with one entrance, but sure. And yes, we are trying to stop school shootings, and all mass shootings.
Do you ever want to explore root causes or become militarized as a society? As a veteran and former military officer, I don't think it's exactly progress, but you're probably right, it might help some?
I agree with the other poster. Some of you will say or do literally anything to avoid talking about root causes. Why are people so violent? Why do we have 400 Million guns? Why do kids access guns?
Why do people think guns save lives when statistically, having one in your house increases the chance that you or a family member will die from a gunshot wound?
I work in a large building. We have AI weapons detection systems in a few key areas, but people can get in if they really are focused. Also, think for a minute... a shooter would take out the security guard first, then just proceed to shoot. If they can shoot at all, it would not be hard to shoot a security officer and then kill several people within a minute or two.
Active shooter situations take less than 8 minutes. I appreciate your deep concern, however.
One thing to consider about with Australia. They aren't sharing a border with Mexico. Making guns illegal in America will just open up a door for smuggling guns across the border. We would definitely have less guns overall. But 100% of those guns will he owned by the people we don't want owning guns.
Just going to throw out some random made up numbers here to try to make a point. What country is safer. One that has one million guns where 95% of them are owned by someone who has no intentions of shooting someone. Or one that has 100,000 guns where 95% of tem are owned by someone who wants to shoot someone? No point in criticizing my made up numbers because they aren't the point. My point is, less guns aren't always better unless you could somehow get that number down to zero.
Westernhawk
Well-Known Member
This is what the interwebs say, and you were doing it. I'm not sure where you got your definition. You brining up drugs when we are talking about mass shootings and equating them, is, well...
thedukeofearl
Well-Known Member
Help me understand, was the 15-year-old female shooter high on Meth
Was that the problem or was it access to a loaded gun
Was that the problem or was it access to a loaded gun
Westernhawk
Well-Known Member
It's about the guns, man.
- Gun death rate: The rate of gun deaths in the United States is 12.09 deaths per 100,000 people, while in Australia it's 0.90 per 100,000 people.
- Gun ownership: The United States has over 9 times the rate of gun ownership than Australia.
- Mass shootings: The United States has many more mass shootings than Australia.
Incidentally, here's the gun ownership levels in guns per 100 people. I don't suppose in your denial, somewhere, you'd make mental space that the 400 Million plus guns we have might be a part of the problem? Or is it the drugs? And with that, I'm out. I'm hoping you'll see some logic to my posts, unless you are illogically defending a point just to do it. Maybe you're just comfortable with our country the way it is. I am definitely not.
It's a pretty big school but not huge. Really big schools night need more than one entrance.
Weren't you involved in the talk earlier about finding root causes?
I gotta say, you're coming off as one of those people who don't want to talk about root causes. I feel like you would call someone making a list of possible root causes whataboutism.
People say guns save lives because guns do save lives. Saying that fact doesn't also mean less people overall die with access to guns, which is what you are insinuating that statement means. If someone breaks into a house and the home owner shoots them right before he starts shooting the family, the gun saved lives. That's what that statement means.
Isn't you finding a scenario where a shooter can kill the security guard and continue to shoot similar to someone saying "just because guns are illegal doesn't mean someone can't shoot up a school with an illegal gun". The argument for saying that is you think just because it won't eliminate all shootings, it will eliminate some. Well, that's the same as my scenario with a security guard. It would eliminate some.
Interesting. I have never seen it used in the "raising a different issue" way. Only the counteraccusation way. Still tho, I made an analogy. That's not the same as raising another issue.
