OK Gun enthusiasts, I want an actual answer

[cale]

I bet you won’t be half the ignorant shit you are today.

K big guy. You so woke.

The entirety of your posting in this thread has been ad hominem and not actually presenting an argument, just shouting from your soapbox about freedom and making references to a big rounding up of guns that's never taken place. You continue to make incorrect assumptions about the positions of others in this thread, I myself am a firearm owner of all sorts (including AR's/pistols), instead choosing to build up a straw-man to validate your preconceptions, complete with liberal tagline for extra effect. Perhaps you craft an actually unique argument yourself to participate or perhaps it's best to just not play along? Again like others, you present nothing new and simply regurgitate the same lines. We get it, we hear you, you've been acknowledged. Speaking fondly about freedom and 2a a few more times isn't going to be the big nail in the coffin post you think it is.

Cale, you have an understanding of guns, but you prefer to use your knowledge for the dissemination of fallacies and fleeting feelings rather than facts and history.

Are you suggesting you'll actually be swayed by all the facts and figures that support gun control?

[z31maniac]

Oh, but all US citizens have have been giving up slice after slice of their 2A freedoms for generations.

Yes, the government has slowly been coming for your guns. Our government is no more altruistic than it's leaders, who have shown their distrust in the people of America when they do not include themselves in the laws they write, SUCH AS GUN LAWS AND HEALTHCARE.

Cale, you have an understanding of guns, but you prefer to use your knowledge for the dissemination of fallacies and fleeting feelings rather than facts and history.

What specific laws are you upset about?

The 1934 Firearms act?
The 1968 Gun Control Act that said people with illegal drugs, convicted of a felony, a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction aren't legally allowed to posses weapons?
The 1986 FOPA that cracked down on the ATF's abuses of legal gun owners? How it banned the legality of a national registry?
The 1993 Brady Act?

Please elucidate which laws you are against and why?

[myinfernalbmw]

In spite of all of those laws, gun crime continued current trends. Example being the decade preceding the Brady act (that you seem to think helped so much) where handgun crime rates were increasing and crimes with "all other guns" were already decreasing leading up to it's enactment.

[z31maniac]

In spite of all of those laws, gun crime continued current trends. Example being the decade preceding the Brady act (that you seem to think helped so much) where handgun crime rates were increasing and crimes with "all other guns" were already decreasing leading up to it's enactment.

Correct, it didn't help at all. An objective analysis shows the waiting periods didn't have any effect on gun homicides or suicides.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5699026/

[myinfernalbmw]

My analysis fails to see how your ironic moving of the goalposts approach corresponds in any way with assault rifles and the entire premise of this thread.

[myinfernalbmw]

I found this pichur to illustrate

[z31maniac]

My analysis fails to see how your ironic moving of the goalposts approach corresponds in any way with assault rifles and the entire premise of this thread.

I'm not moving any goalposts. You implied the Brady Act had no impact, so I responded with a study that says it did.

[myinfernalbmw]

I stand corrected. You certainly showed me.

This Journal of the American Medical Association article shows that while the Brady Act notably slowed suicide rates for those over age 55, had little to no effect on homicides and suicides as a whole. You were right, the Brady Act was amazingly successful.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/192946

[z31maniac]

I stand corrected. You certainly showed me.

This Journal of the American Medical Association article shows that while the Brady Act notably slowed suicide rates for those over age 55, had little to no effect on homicides and suicides as a whole. You were right, the Brady Act was amazingly successful.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam...article/192946

Interesting I actually read their entire synopsis. It would be interesting to really compare every word of both studies and determine how one said there was a 17% reduction in homicide rates and the other showed no statistical difference. Especially because both came up with essentially the same % of reductions in suicide rate (6% vs 7%).

[mach schnell]

Cale's from Canada so...

That explains a lot.

Canada: France’ ’’’s whiny cousin.

[myinfernalbmw]

My intent wasn't to mock him for having a flappy head, even if I do enjoy making fun of the French continentals and our moose riding, piss beer drinking cousins from the north. I actually think Cale is pretty reasonable and his views and opinions are coming from the experiences of a different country (sort of). Having someone with opposing viewpoints that are actually willing (or have the mental capacity) to explore them is an asset, not a burden.

[z31maniac]

My intent wasn't to mock him for having a flappy head, even if I do enjoy making fun of the French continentals and our moose riding, piss beer drinking cousins from the north. I actually think Cale is pretty reasonable and his views and opinions are coming from the experiences of a different country (sort of). Having someone with opposing viewpoints that are actually willing (or have the mental capacity) to explore them is an asset, not a burden.

So, non-smart ass/snarky question. Granted I know the study you shared was older, but why do you think they came to such different conclusions on one part of the study (homicides) but nearly identical on suicides?

I find this kind of stuff really interesting.

[mrsleeve]

^
I would guess there was something included on the higher study as "homicide" that was not considered "homicide " in the slightly older study. An orange to tangerines comparison, very close and the same at 1st glance but slight variations in interpretation of the raw data set.

[myinfernalbmw]

So, non-smart ass/snarky question. Granted I know the study you shared was older, but why do you think they came to such different conclusions on one part of the study (homicides) but nearly identical on suicides?

I find this kind of stuff really interesting.

While I read through the study you cited, I didn't examine it in excruciating detail. It may have taken it into account and adjusted for it, but wouldn't the sample sizes seem like the most obvious cause of discrepancy (1985-1997 vs 1970-2015)? Including the higher rate of homicides throughout the 70s-80s would show a greater decline in overall percentage no?

[marshallnoise]

So now that master Beto O'Rourke actually declared that he wants to take our guns unequivocally, what say you "reasonable restrictions" folks?