The moderators of this forum are dave and WaterBomb.
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
Im not here to start no snip, just listen. Self-defense is very important and I think these kids may just be a bit hasty in thier approach. Sure, gun laws could be curbed to be more sensible, I get that. Do these kids understand what they are giving up for a false sense of security? I say false sense in the most literal way because we all know police get away with excessive shows of force quite often. These police are really the only people you want to have access to firearms?
I dont like guns but I'm not above putting a hot one in anybody who tries to make me a victim. It is really that simple. Now can we quit using guns as a scapegoat for our actions? Guns cant pull their own trigger and I'm positive that bigger prey than man has fallen to far more primitive tools.
We cannot change our violent nature from the outside, that is a change that must happen within. Welp, thats all I got.
The left is well aware that guns are not the issue and the statistics clearly show that there's no real link between gun control and less violence. Those who still support it are generally just scared of big scawy assault wifles (which the AR-15 is not), straight up authoritarians who simply want more government control, or are unaware of the facts.
The left is well aware that guns are not the issue and the statistics clearly show that there's no real link between gun control and less violence. Those who still support it are generally just scared of big scawy assault wifles (which the AR-15 is not), straight up authoritarians who simply want more government control, or are unaware of the facts.
lol @ the "ars are NOT assault rifles" semantics speech, despite the colloquial defiinition of an assault rifle simply being determined to be a gun that holds a larger than average magazine size and has the capability to mow down 100s of people in seconds, as if pointing out that its "Armalite rifle" not "assault rifle" somehow invalidates the arguments against it. You know that the ar15 was one of the primary military grade weapons used in Vietnam right? Does that not somehow imply "hey, these should be for military use not for casual civilian use"
I'm so proud of the gen x-ers or whatever their gen is for the finally becoming activists. First time in history iirc that young people have actually stood up for political activism at such a young age. Really don't get how people say they are just being shilled by CNN and crazy leftists, as if the kids shouldn't have their own voice and the only possible explanation for them advocating against the killing of their fellow students and the proliferation of fearmongering into gun sales can only be the work of those evil NWO george soros liberals
The left is well aware that guns are not the issue and the statistics clearly show that there's no real link between gun control and less violence. Those who still support it are generally just scared of big scawy assault wifles (which the AR-15 is not), straight up authoritarians who simply want more government control, or are unaware of the facts.
Pretending you are different because of poltical leanings is doing you no favors. Putting your politics on display right out the door reeks of ulterior motives. I just want people to be able to anticipate the repercussions in this situation, it really isnt about politics. This is about human rights, specifically disenfranchised humans.
Just gonna give the quick hits and subsequently disengage from arguing with you:
- Gun manufacturers are given immunity to lawsuits above and beyond what other industries enjoy. These additional protections should be removed.
- That's a crying shame that whats his face regrets the CDC ban, doesn't change that it happened
- Active shooter drills needlessly traumatize children. They imply that school shootings are inevitable natural phenomena, and that we must prepare for them like we would an earthquake.
- activating sweetie mode: I am referring to cops being able to shoot black people for nothing at all (and sometimes white people!) and having a virtual guarantee that the jury will let them off the hook. I want cops disarmed like they are in many other countries.
- The fact that American politicians are corrupt in many other ways does not contradict that they are corrupt in this way too. Our country is deeply flawed.
- I'm pro-choice and do not care about the Democrats taking funding from PP. That is good to me. What does this have to do with gun control?
- Are you not familiar with Erik Prince, Blackwater, and the Iraq war? You don't see anything fucked about a man who wants to privatize and profit off war having a family member that oversees education? Try to put the pieces together. Guns. War. Killing innocent civilians in Iraq. Education. Schools. Parkland. Really makes you think...
- You said that the kids (incl. Hogg) do not face criticism. In fact, they do. I'm sure the fact that his face is flush from having a phallic object in his mouth isn't an attack on him, just like Laura Ingraham making fun of him for not getting into college wasn't. "Doesn't get to hide" is a non-sequitur.
- I wouldn't call myself an authoritarian, but I am absolutely in favor of more government control.
Ill get to the other points later bc itll take longer but in the meantime
lol @ the "ars are NOT assault rifles" semantics speech, despite the colloquial defiinition of an assault rifle simply being determined to be a gun that holds a larger than average magazine size and has the capability to mow down 100s of people in seconds, as if pointing out that its "Armalite rifle" not "assault rifle" somehow invalidates the arguments against it. You know that the ar15 was one of the primary military grade weapons used in Vietnam right? Does that not somehow imply "hey, these should be for military use not for casual civilian use"
The definition of an assault rifle is a rifle that uses a medium-sized cartridge (usually smaller than let's say a .308), is selective fire, and generally has a detachable magazine. The magazine size can be applied to many guns that arent even rifles. You can make a large magazine for a handgun. You can have a 25 round magazine for a submachine gun. And "mow down 100s of people in seconds" lmfao, the ar-15 shoots just as fast as every other semi-automatic gun in the market, yes that includes handguns. At close range handguns do much more damage, mind you. The ar-15 was not used in Vietnam. The M16 was, which was selective fire. AKA it could fire automatically and semi-automatically. I agree, fully automatic rifles should not be in the hands of civilians without extensive background checks and mental health screening. Which they already are.
Maaan, I got in gun debates with relatives now we’re doing it on Smogon. Nothing is sacred.
Very, very, very few people are calling for an all out ban on all guns everywhere. Even most NRA members and gun owners admit that there need to be stricter gun laws (I believe the statistic is somewhere around 70% of gun owners but currently on mobile so I’ll have to find the source later). What most people are calling for is a limitation on bump stocks, high capacity magazines, and combat-styled weapons along with stricter background checks that are required even for independent sellers as many states don’t require them. Also keeping people with a history of domestic violence from getting guns is a really good idea if you have any common sense.
If anyone can honestly give a legitimate reason to not impose stricter gun laws, I’d love to hear it. I’ve debunked most with the tiniest amount of logic.
e: Also agree with Robert, as cool as it is for the Parkland kids to be standing up for gun control and trying to get things pushed, certain things they want are extremely ableist and indirectly racist. Good message especially for people like them but there are problems with it. That being said, everything that’s ever existed has had problems and I believe that if people actually take the time to think about all the repercussions of the laws we want to create, we can make it all much safer.
while the conservative smears against them are absolutely ridiculous and frankly insulting, these kids aren't fit to be leading any sort of public debate on anything. i'm sure they intend no harm, but gun control is a way more complicated topic than they - or most people, for that matter- realize. the twitter thread i linked does a pretty good job of pointing out some big flaws in their manifesto. if you're gonna be serious about gun reform, the consequences must be thought through, because as nice as gun control might sound in theory, in practice it can very easily lead to further marginalization of the mentally ill, people of color, and other minorities.
side note: you'd do well not to use "triggered" as an insult, i know it might seem like a funny idea to appropriate a term mostly used by right wingers and use it against them, but keep in mind that this word is used for people who genuinely suffer from trauma, marginalizing their experiences by turning this word into an epic meme is not advisable
While I'm all for nuance in public debate up to the point where I don't even remember what the debate was about in the first place, couple of things I think are missing here:
- Personal experiences, even flawed, are an extremely good introduction to active politics: This goes a bit beyond the "wtf I just got my tax returns and where did my money go" but most Western-style democracies struggle heavily with youth involvement, for a variety of reasons. While it's sad that it took the incompetence of multiple generations and a tragedy to start being a remedy to that, it is a very real issue that needs to be addressed, and this is a start here, purely because the Parkland kids took the opportunity to.
- The privileges they enjoy might be real, but simultaneously occult the ground they're breaking and how other people can connect to it: Indirectly related to the first point, but while yes the general society is listening to, well, kids, the fact that they are listening to mostly white kids shouldn't stop you from realizing that they are listening to, well, kids. That, in a debate where both sides have been hurling insults for so long that they start the moment we get notified of a shooting, is sort of impressive in itself, and while other kids may not recognize themselves in the mostly white crowd developed in the Parkland story, the one hope is that this is an encouragement for them to be willing to share their viewpoints and stories. This isn't perfect by any means, but activism is a slow and messy route that tends to start from privilege.
- Surprise, High School and College students are not going to mention everything there is!: This is by far my biggest annoyance with the people smearing College kids for protesting, but it applies to what you said here too because this is the same "I want my cake and you to tell me every ingredient of that cake" clap trap that so many people use to dismiss their political and social positions that are in my opinion crucial for the growth of their social life. Yes, HS and College kids will say dumb things, but I would strongly encourage them to do so. Hell, as a TA I've read some truly special shit, but if I didn't, and didn't take a stance of pointing it out, then I didn't do my part of helping them understand. But I digress, my point here is mostly that I would never expect anyone of that age to be able to form a cognitive argument that ignored nothing, but I still have a far stronger dislike to them being silenced for this inability. This attitude that kids should either shut up or be able to tell us everything about every issue is just gross, completely misses the point of learning, and is a nuisance to the growth of society.
- Also, activism isn't about everything: The Parkland story is about mass shootings in American schools. The Twitter thread you mention had this in its very first post:
“civilians shouldn’t have access to the same weapons that soldiers do” is the most insensitive, disgusting, and imperialist rhetoric you can use b/c it disregards the foreign lives overseas that are lost due to american gun violence.
What in the world does that have to do with school shootings?!? Answer is obvious: absolutely nothing. The demands being put on activism here are incredibly unfair, even if I tend to agree with the points being made here. Activism has to be specific to put pressure on society, it will always loses the strategic war if it's not able to do that. This is a point that is somehow so simple and yet so incredibly obscure to so many people given how many reactionary hot takes of the genre I read and they all make me want to bang my head against a wall.
- Also, activism isn't about everything: The Parkland story is about mass shootings in American schools. The Twitter thread you mention had this in its very first post:
What in the world does that have to do with school shootings?!? Answer is obvious: absolutely nothing. The demands being put on activism here are incredibly unfair, even if I tend to agree with the points being made here. Activism has to be specific to put pressure on society, it will always loses the strategic war if it's not able to do that. This is a point that is somehow so simple and yet so incredibly obscure to so many people given how many reactionary hot takes of the genre I read and they all make me want to bang my head against a wall.
One problem with activism is exactly that: all too often, the activist regards politics as a set of policies, one or more of which they find disagreeable enough to protest against. This is short-sighted, because the political is interlinked: we cannot talk about gun control without talking about systemic racism, ableism, the prison industrial complex, etc etc etc. For me, getting serious about political change means that we need to think seriously about dismantling the structures that led us to where we are right now. It's not enough to go "let's change Policy X" and call it a day, the implications of it go far beyond that policy itself and this must be thought through if the activist actually wants to improve society. This does not mean that activists are forbidden from having a flawed perspective on the situation, but if this perspective is not successfully challenged so that a better, more holistic movement can rise from the ashes of single-issue activism, then it's bound to end up nowhere. On that note, it's only natural that the Parkland kids have a flawed perspective on things and, like you said, they should be allowed to make mistakes, but that's also why having them front and center in this debate might not be a great idea.
For the record, that particular point in the Twitter thread you highlighted is detached enough from the issue at hand to be somewhat ridiculous in context since it merely points out the insensitivity of a certain policy, which, as it appears to me, has no direct bearing on the material and social consequences of the implementation of such a policy, but most of these points discuss serious problems worth addressing.
You said that the kids (incl. Hogg) do not face criticism. In fact, they do. I'm sure the fact that his face is flush from having a phallic object in his mouth isn't an attack on him,
Phallic object? You're really reaching on that one, man. I'm pretty sure garrison's interpretation was that CNN is "using" the kids to push their own agenda.
One problem with activism is exactly that: all too often, the activist regards politics as a set of policies, one or more of which they find disagreeable enough to protest against. This is short-sighted, because the political is interlinked: we cannot talk about gun control without talking about systemic racism, ableism, the prison industrial complex, etc etc etc. For me, getting serious about political change means that we need to think seriously about dismantling the structures that led us to where we are right now. It's not enough to go "let's change Policy X" and call it a day, the implications of it go far beyond that policy itself and this must be thought through if the activist actually wants to improve society. This does not mean that activists are forbidden from having a flawed perspective on the situation, but if this perspective is not successfully challenged so that a better, more holistic movement can rise from the ashes of single-issue activism, then it's bound to end up nowhere. On that note, it's only natural that the Parkland kids have a flawed perspective on things and, like you said, they should be allowed to make mistakes, but that's also why having them front and center in this debate might not be a great idea.
For the record, that particular point in the Twitter thread you highlighted is detached enough from the issue at hand to be somewhat ridiculous in context since it merely points out the insensitivity of a certain policy, which, as it appears to me, has no direct bearing on the material and social consequences of the implementation of such a policy, but most of these points discuss serious problems worth addressing.
While I'm generally skeptical of almost anything holistic, I understand where you are coming from, but I still feel you are looking at this in the opposite way it is intended. Activism won't lead to a more global philosophy or movement because it is born from a philosophy or movement that people feel isn't consistently applied to specific situations. However, activism being largely single-minded in its application doesn't reject the notion that it operates alone: activists needs to be linked in conversations as part of tactics/networking. In this case while yes, school shootings are a very specific problem that those activists are specifically targeting, nothing stop others to engage themselves in a similar fashion.
And again I just disagree, because having them up front is I think a perfectly good idea. Yes, discourse is difficult, messy and sometimes erratic in how you relate to multiple experiences and structures of power, but focusing on the criticism that you would give to activists that largely corroborates your ideas and perspectives instead of actively adding to what is brought forward is precisely what doesn't strike me as a great idea.
The modern AR-15 is just a civilian variant of the military's M-16. It was conceived in the 1950s as an answer to the ubiquitous Ak-47. It is a military grade weapon. In the early 1960s, the Armalite AR-15 was adopted by the Secretary of Defense as the 5.56mm M16 rifle. To suggest a substantial or relevant difference in the Colt brand AR-15 and the Armalite AR-15 is ludicrous as Armalite sold the rights of the patent to Colt in 1959, which the wikipedia page you linked even says. For reference, the M16, the military variant of the aforementioned AR-15, started to be used in 1964. Its ignorant to suggest that the parent weapon is somehow different from its military offshoot considering the only main difference is that the M16 is fully automatic. Unfortunately, it really isnt difficult to turn the semi-automatic, legal AR-15 into a fully automatic through drop in auto sears (DIAS). These are illegal unless the drop in auto sears were registered before 1986 through the commonly cited Gun control act that prohibits “machine guns.” Too bad you have a slew of gun nut vietnam veterans perfectly willing to sell their collection. Even if you didnt want to try to find a legal DIAS, for theyre expensive as shit, for open bolt semi autos its as simple as removing a few parts with a drill. There are ways around the Automatic ban.
That article is extremely misleading. Firstly implying that only mass shootings matter in this idea, and with that limiting it to four or more deaths in a public space at that, which slices up an extremely specific subsect of gun-related deaths. On top of that,I call into question the veracity of the articles you pulled from considering that the Crime Prevention Research Center is a non-profit organization founded by John Lott Jr., conservative "gun guru" and Fox News columnist, frequently touted as a fraud by his own peers, has been caught intentionally spreading misinformation and using misleading statistics. On top of that it is highly speculated that the man accepts NRA donations, and is often promoted at NRA events. Now do you really think someone with such a vested interest in the NRA, which also has a vested interest in selling as many guns as possible, wouldn't mislead statistics? Ill give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you probably just pulled the first source that fit your claim, but its the equivalent of linking to Breitbart to support a claim that black people are inherently more dangerous people or some other such nonsense
Yeah, since when do we allow posts that discuss site moderation actions? I got de-modded because only firemods can apparently post material (a criticism of an anti-parent school policy in this case) people get offended by in Firebot without consequence. Someone complained a month later and the forward-looking site staff still hasn't come clean with their "no politically conservative mods" policy. I actually had a civil PM exchange with the person who pointed out the post.
But Smogon might want to update the mod guidelines at some point with that policy instead of enforcing one that isn't posted and targets a single user you don't like.
I deny all ad hominem attacks against me. You know I am not any of the things you accuse me of, and I wouldn't have been a mod on and off, voluntarily, for 6+ years if ANY of it were true. But the accusation is made anyway because some people just can't handle political disagreement that forces them to think a little. EV, if you think criticizing a group that engages in and supports political violence (Antifa) even if they say they oppose another group that engages and supports political violence (Neo-National Socialists) is "anti-anti-bigot" instead of "anti-political violence" then you are being plainly illogical and uncharitable. It's the same hate and violence with a palette-swapped costume, right down to the Socialism. That this reasoning still illudes you says more about you than it does about me.
Back on topic: Yes, I'm criticizing people who are making public policy statements on the basis they do not present a compelling image to the people they want to reach. Politics is all about image and the image these kids are presenting is that you should lose your inalienable right to self defense but clear backpacks are an infringement on their privacy rights. The posit that they care more than you do about your own kids despite your life experience directly contradicting that claim.
Deal with things as how they are, not with how you wish them to be. Gun control as a movement's own worst enemy is its own spokespeople
lol, why is he blushing then? Do you really think this is too low for Ben Garrison? It's not even close to being the most ridiculous attack on Hogg, the InfoWars-right has been pushing this:
People connect people they don't like with well-knoen radicals all the time. For example, leftists equating Hitler with Trump. Don't play dumb and pretend that this is something new
Overexaggerated blush is pretty common in cartooning iirc, not to mention that that makes no sense? Since when does blushing have anything to do blowjobs? What???? Idk about your hentai but irl I've never associated nor heard of anyone associating having dicks in your mouth and blushing
It's pretty clearly supposed to show CNN using Hogg as a metaphorical gun to promote anti-2nd amendment propaganda. If he was trying to show Hogg "sucking the dick of an assault rifle" (again ??????????) would he have him doing something with the barrel instead?
edit: silly deck knight are you implying this forum treats non-leftist opinions validly? are you some kind of bigot?
The modern AR-15 is just a civilian variant of the military's M-16. It was conceived in the 1950s as an answer to the ubiquitous Ak-47. It is a military grade weapon. In the early 1960s, the Armalite AR-15 was adopted by the Secretary of Defense as the 5.56mm M16 rifle. To suggest a substantial or relevant difference in the Colt brand AR-15 and the Armalite AR-15 is ludicrous as Armalite sold the rights of the patent to Colt in 1959, which the wikipedia page you linked even says. For reference, the M16, the military variant of the aforementioned AR-15, started to be used in 1964. Its ignorant to suggest that the parent weapon is somehow different from its military offshoot considering the only main difference is that the M16 is fully automatic. Unfortunately, it really isnt difficult to turn the semi-automatic, legal AR-15 into a fully automatic through drop in auto sears (DIAS). These are illegal unless the drop in auto sears were registered before 1986 through the commonly cited Gun control act that prohibits “machine guns.” Too bad you have a slew of gun nut vietnam veterans perfectly willing to sell their collection. Even if you didnt want to try to find a legal DIAS, for theyre expensive as shit, for open bolt semi autos its as simple as removing a few parts with a drill. There are ways around the Automatic ban.
"military grade" does not mean anything. A semiautomatic weapon is a semiautomatic weapon. The "substantial difference" between an Armalite AR-15 and a Colt AR-15 is that one is automatic and one is fully automatic. It doesn't matter that the Colt was developed from the Armalite. It is a different weapon. There are close qualities between the M16 and the AR-15. This might shock you, but guns generally look the same. The difference is that the m16 is automatic, the Colt Ar15 is semi. If you don't think that's a substantial difference, I can't help you there.
Putting a DIAS in an AR15 is illegal. It might be easy (to perform, not to obtain), but it is illegal. You can't convert an AR15 to automatic with "a drill". You can machine new parts, but you need a machine shop for that. It's also...illegal. "Machine guns" are illegal, and there are "ways to get around the ban", as you say. They just happen to be against the law. Yeah, there are ways to break the law, by breaking the law.
The proposed solution to that is...confiscation of every AR-15 in the country, which is where the discussion inevitably goes anyway. If you believe that, then we don't have much to talk about.
That article is extremely misleading. Firstly implying that only mass shootings matter in this idea, and with that limiting it to four or more deaths in a public space at that, which slices up an extremely specific subsect of gun-related deaths. On top of that,I call into question the veracity of the articles you pulled from considering that the Crime Prevention Research Center is a non-profit organization founded by John Lott Jr., conservative "gun guru" and Fox News columnist, frequently touted as a fraud by his own peers, has been caught intentionally spreading misinformation and using misleading statistics. On top of that it is highly speculated that the man accepts NRA donations, and is often promoted at NRA events. Now do you really think someone with such a vested interest in the NRA, which also has a vested interest in selling as many guns as possible, wouldn't mislead statistics? Ill give you the benefit of the doubt because I think you probably just pulled the first source that fit your claim, but its the equivalent of linking to Breitbart to support a claim that black people are inherently more dangerous people or some other such nonsense
Since these gun control topics usually happen after mass shootings, I usually assume that mass shooting rates are a good place to start. If you'd rather talk about gun deaths instead, go ahead.
"Four or more [victim] deaths" is the FBI definition of a mass shooting until 2013. He didn't make it up out of nowhere. From 2013 onwards, it was changed to 3 or more deaths. I believe in 2017 it was changed again to four deaths, but perpetrator included if they killed themselves. This has been the standard method of "slicing up" an "extremely specific subset"
You can't just wave your hands and say the source is bad. These are hard numbers. The claims he produces from the numbers can be questioned (of note his claim that the mass shooting frequency of the EU/USA is not statistically significant, as he used the "average" EU country rate compared with the "actual" US rate). But the numbers are numbers. Don't give me "the benefit of the doubt". This source is poisoned because the man making the claims has a vested interest in selling more guns? You can say the same for any pro-control publication that we can "speculate" has an interest in selling less guns. Everybody has an agenda. Data is data.
I choose to argue this because I've yet to see the study that proves implementing gun control is actually going to be the magic bullet. People point to australia as the poster child for gun control but the academic conclusion is muddled. I hate the NRA as much as anybody, but they've got their agenda. All the talk about "common sense" gun control (that most states usually already have) is a waste of time, funded endlessly by lobby groups on both sides of the aisle. Congress runs in circles every year, but they've got a vested interest in nothing changing, since they get to keep their donations. Either that, or people just say we should repeal the 2nd amendment. If you believe that, then fine, but there's no point in arguing because nobody is going to change their mind.
I wish I had more time to post— would like to honestly address some of Deck and Kilometer’s criticisms (most of which I disagree with but some have legitimacy).
What I have time for on the train is to tell Deck that you know you’re wrong about your assertion that these kids can’t spin this to their personal advantage. I’m not sure about Emma and the others, but David, if he wants to, definitely could use this to fast track into political commentary, political media, journalism, media, or even liberal politics itself. TYT would be after him to get him on the show or in front of cameras out of college, but you could easily see him welcomed into Our Revolution it one of the other progressive organizations. Even that invite Dave Rubin extended to debate Kyle— I don’t think it’ll happen since it makes zero strategic sense for David to accept, but it shows the doors are open. There is a demonstrated ability here for organization and leadership here that is more than enough to appeal to universities and employers and if you don’t see that you’re deluding yourself man. I can see why the right would hate his guts but this is one impressive 17 year old lobster.
I deny all ad hominem attacks against me. You know I am not any of the things you accuse me of, and I wouldn't have been a mod on and off, voluntarily, for 6+ years if ANY of it were true.
IDK man. You said so yourself, you were a mod for 6+ years on/off. But we don't allow conservative mods. But there's one posting in this very thread. Maybe we just don't allow racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist mods. Which is it?
Anyway, I won't belabor our philosophical differences regarding moderation itt because I really don't have a lot to add to the thread's actual topic, other than it baffles me that people would put the rights to own a weapon that can mow down 900 concert goers at the rate of an automatic weapon over the rights of ... not being mowed down at a concert? Or a night club? Or a high school?
First off, this is a post that is coming from the fact that I don't have time (or the specific gun stats knowledge) to address point-by-point some of the arguments here. I personally hold a left/center-left position on the issue, but it is one typically of lesser importance to me than many of the economic ones.
Issue-wise, what's interested me more here is the the focus on the NRA and gun-lobby's spending in politics. Indeed, for progressives, especially the economic-focused ones, getting money out of politics is the master issue-- the most important issue that negatively affects every other issue.
I'm genuinely interested to know if Deck and Kilometer man buy the "money is free speech" argument, and are happy to have unlimited investment by individuals and interest groups into political campaigns. Especially considering how technology has shaped public discourse, and the data provided by overly-powerful tech companies like Google and Facebook give us incredible control over our ability to target and tune paid advertising. (I should know, I am an advertiser and was sitting across Sales reps from Google and Facebook explaining to me how the personal data of users was being productized for my use in meetings just last week...)
Do we act entirely libertarian to the issue, or do we acknowledge that all of us humans have psychological weaknesses for being nudged, being influenced, being made to react to our hot buttons in pretty predictable ways.
And the efficacy of modern digital marketing is still a separate topic from how money influences politicians, and how incentives affect behavior, which is the even more critical issue regarding what our representatives end up choosing to do with their time working for us.
And of course it's not just powerful industry lobbies, of course that would mean getting money out of politics from powerful leftist donor and labor unions etc. Is that something that you guys would agree with, or are you see it as a better politic when people who have more money (whoever they may be) are able to put a stronger thumb on the scale?
Jokes aside I will say the same thing I say every time it continues to amaze me that the only developed country where this repeatedly happens insists that tightening gun laws isn't the way of fixing this.
Jokes aside I will say the same thing I say every time it continues to amaze me that the only developed country where this repeatedly happens insists that tightening gun laws isn't the way of fixing this.
It continues to amaze me that people continue to think gun control will result in less gun deaths and deaths in general despite there still being no evidence.
And what do you mean by "this repeatedly happens"? You mean mass shootings? The United States isn't even in the top 10 western countries in terms of mass shooting deaths.
That is not accurate, there is plenty of correlation between stricter gun control laws and fewer deaths. Here is a USAToday article that breaks down most, and least, gun related deaths per state when adjusting for population size. Some interesting things to note, the states with the highest gun death rates are often the states with relatively loose gun restrictions. "Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia require a permit to carry a handgun. Of the 12 states that allow individuals to carry concealed weapons (CCW) in public without a permit — Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming — eight report above-average firearm death rates." The data used for such an article / analysis was firearms-related deaths by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as violent crime rates from the FBI.
According to "The Effectiveness of Legislation Controlling Gun Usage: A Holistic Measure of Gun Control Legislation" a journal published in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, which you can read as I have here, "states with the most comprehensive gun control legislation experienced on average one to almost six fewer gun-related fatalities than those states with the most lax laws. Gun control laws are a deterrent; however, they only address one aspect of individual behavior regarding the use (and abuse) of firearms. " While yes, passing gun control legislation would not stop crime, it is certainly linked to promoting a society that results in fewer gun-related deaths. And that is just a study on violent crime rates. There are a ton of other facts that can reduce crime rates and death, anything from unemployment to poverty level to levels of education have been linked to lower crime rates.
In a study related to "determining whether counties located closer to states with lenient firearm policies have higher firearm death rates", they found that "strong state firearm policies were associated with lower suicide rates regardless of other states’ laws. Strong policies were associated with lower homicide rates, and strong interstate policies were also associated with lower homicide rates, where home state policies were permissive. Strengthening state firearm policies may prevent firearm suicide and homicide, with benefits that may extend beyond state lines." In fact there has been plenty of research done that shows gun control laws reduce gun related deaths.
In addition, there has been numerous research shown that, not only is The United States in the top 10 of western countries with mass shootings, the United States actually has more mass shootings -- and more people cumulatively killed or injured -- than the other 10 nations combined. Even when adjusted for population, they say that the US is still above Australia, Canada, China, England, France, Germany, and Mexico. I know of the study you are probably thinking of, the same one that Gato linked with John Lott, and I just have to say that John Lott is not a credible source. He is essentially laughed at in the circle of academia for misrepresentation of statistics and speaking half truths. In one such incident he was found to have fabricated an entire survey in a 1997 study. That study of the United States falling in average mass shooting deaths is because when a country like Germany has a mass shooting the deaths tend to be far bigger than your average United States mass shootings. This claim that the United States suffers a lower rate of death from mass shootings compared to the oft-cited Norway is nothing more than an inappropriate use of statistics that obscures the fact that mass shootings are very rare in European countries. Please don't read such misleading information.
Protip: using misleading data and arguments actually makes your argument seem weaker
First off the notion that "this area has more guns and more gun deaths so clearly gun control works" is laughable. That article provides no evidence of the link between more guns and more gun deaths, neither does it provide evidence that gun control had a positive effect. It also conveniently measures firearm deaths--which is completely absurd given that more than half of all gun deaths in the US are suicides. If we want to look at homicide rates, the link between strict gun laws and gun homicides is all over the place. A nonprofit anti-gun organization called the Brady Campaign made a grading system so simplify understanding of which states had the most gun laws. Eight of the ten states with the highest homicide rates and the eight of the ten states with the lowest homicide rates all received a D or an F on this scale.
They're citing research that only used data from 2000-2014, and did not include terrorist attacks. Elsass, one of the lead researchers said this:
"If these were included, we are likely to see something much different statistically as there have been a number of very high-profile terrorist attacks in Europe, some including the use of firearms, that are excluded from the current analysis"
Can you explain to me how Lott could have fabricated this study without any of the other researchers realizing, or show me evidenced it was fabricated?
In addition, there has been numerous research shown that, not only is The United States in the top 10 of western countries with mass shootings, the United States actually has more mass shootings -- and more people cumulatively killed or injured -- than the other 10 nations combined. Even when adjusted for population, they say that the US is still above Australia, Canada, China, England, France, Germany, and Mexico.That study of the United States falling in average mass shooting deaths is because when a country like Germany has a mass shooting the deaths tend to be far bigger than your average United States mass shootings. This claim that the United States suffers a lower rate of death from mass shootings compared to the oft-cited Norway is nothing more than an inappropriate use of statistics that obscures the fact that mass shootings are very rare in European countries. Please don't read such misleading information.
I'm sorry but what is the obsession with anti-gun people and the number of mass shootings? I could care less if the US had a higher number of mass shootings, I care more about how deadly they were. Anyone logical would assume that, but because the data benefits them, you people hone in this.
That is not accurate, there is plenty of correlation between stricter gun control laws and fewer deaths. Here is a USAToday article that breaks down most, and least, gun related deaths per state when adjusting for population size. Some interesting things to note, the states with the highest gun death rates are often the states with relatively loose gun restrictions. "Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia require a permit to carry a handgun. Of the 12 states that allow individuals to carry concealed weapons (CCW) in public without a permit — Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming — eight report above-average firearm death rates." The data used for such an article / analysis was firearms-related deaths by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention as well as violent crime rates from the FBI.
These two bolded lines are unrelated. Looking through this list, of the 25 states that report above-average firearm death rates, 17 of them require a permit to carry a handgun. States with the highest rates of gun death could be "often" not ones with loose gun restrictions, unless there are some unreported metrics going on. For example, this list doesn't list CC laws.
"states with the most comprehensive gun control legislation experienced on average one to almost six fewer gun-related fatalities than those states with the most lax laws.
1 to 6 fewer fatalities per 100,000 residents. Do you happen to have full access to the study? I'd be interested to see relative improvement this results in between the laxest and scrictest gun control states. The study also says "These findings suggest that gun-related deaths have a variety of causes and that attempts to legislate a solution to this problem will need to be correspondingly complex and multifaceted. "
Fairly comprehensive stuff, but I still do wonder exactly how much of an effect the laws actually have relative to the poorly ranked states
For the last set of articles--the politifact one says that the USA has lower mass shooting death rates than Norway, Finland, and Switzerland, and then says "they have populations so small that one or two mass-casualty events can produce a relatively high per capita rate." Yeah, uh, so? Sorry, but that's how statistics WORK. Snopes does the same thing, such as with this scary looking table. The numbers for the USA are so high! Yeah, but they didn't apply population to it.
In 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015, there was not a single death from a mass shooting in Norway.
If we compare the number of mass shooting deaths each year to the population of Norway each year, using the same method we did for the United States, we get an average annual death rate of 2 per million, more than 20 times higher than the rate in the United States (0.09 per million), even though we know there were zero mass shooting deaths in six out of those seven years, in Norway.
If this strikes you as ridiculous, you’re on to something.
What sort of logic is this? Yes, norway had one large mass shooting. Sorry that that jacks up its death rate, but that's how statistics work.
"This table shows the reality of mass shooting deaths in sixteen countries. In fifteen of them, year after year goes by without a single death, but with sporadic fatalities in one or two years. In the United States, there were at least 12 mass shooting deaths every single year. "
If you scaled up the population of these sixteen countries, then we wouldn't be so sure that "year after year" would go by without a single death. Snopes goes about the median deaths per year in these small-population european countries, well lott did the same methodology for similarly sized US states. Look at those small medians! If snopes is going to apply the "0 median deaths" logic to all those european countries, then they can do it to all these states, too.
I'm not going to deny that Lott has a serious agenda and has questionable honesty. But these numbers are real numbers. Snope's rhetoric in their fact check is that it is somewhat dubious to say that the US has a lower mass shooting death rate than europe, while also saying that "mass shootings are rare in europe". The question becomes, what does "rare" mean?
While Lott claims the per capita rate in the United States and Europe are approximately the same, his own data tables tell a different story. Accepting his data at face value, between 2009 and 2015, the United States had 25 mass shootings versus 19 in the E.U. and 24 in Europe as a whole. This comes out as a rate of .078 shootings per million individuals in the United States, .038 for the E.U., and .032 for Europe as a whole. The United States has more than double the mass shooting rate of the E.U. and Europe, directly contradicting Lott’s statements about his own data.
I said in my previous post that Lott's claim that there is no statistically significant difference in USA/EU mass shooting death rate, because there is a statistically significant difference: USA has double the rate of the EU. However, if Snopes is going to call .038/million death rate for the EU as "mass shootings are rare in the EU", what does that make a rate of .078/million for the USA? It is double, it is statistically significant, but it is still "rare". Snope's rhetoric is that the low population of european countries makes them unsuitable for comparing to the high-population US, then simultaneously saying the USA has so many deaths a few sentences later. "Ah, the low population of Europe means that one event skews the data...but look at this number of deaths in the USA! (not the rate)"
If people just used rate consistently, for everything, it would at least make it easier to read the damn articles, by both sides of this stupid argument this gets seriously annoying
They're citing research that only used data from 2000-2014, and did not include terrorist attacks. Elsass, one of the lead researchers said this:
"If these were included, we are likely to see something much different statistically as there have been a number of very high-profile terrorist attacks in Europe, some including the use of firearms, that are excluded from the current analysis"
Yeah man, but uh, there are some terrorism ones in the USA too. There is no reason using the FBI mass shooting definitions is bad. It's standard in different places, it's consistent across years, it's well defined.
Can you explain to me how Lott could have fabricated this study without any of the other researchers realizing, or show me evidenced it was fabricated?
He said he lost all the data on his "hard drive crash", lost the papers when moving to a new university, and couldn't remember the names of his students that worked on the survey. That's pretty telling if you can't remember or didn't keep records of any of the damn students that worked for you, lmfao.
Like 5 posts up TCR says that mass shootings are only a small subset of the gun violence problem, I'm the one that brought up mass shooting rates/death rates anyway. Chill out and don't say shit like "anyone logical", it makes you seem like some kind of enlightened expert.
this gets seriously annoying