Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OK Gun enthusiasts, I want an actual answer

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • roguetoaster
    replied
    Originally posted by mrsleeve View Post

    Bob is the only stupid enough to say out loud and proud what all the rest on that stage wet dream about when it come to 2a issues. They in general agree 100% with those things.
    It really does not matter what someone says or even what they think at this stage, it's only what items will be realistically actionable during the next administration/Congress no matter who is in.

    In any case, Pandora's box has already been opened for so long and to such a degree it doesn't seem likely that we can legislate our way out of this issue. However, I suspect that it will just naturally resolve itself over a multi-generational time scale as fewer and fewer young people are exposed to firearms, and so they naturally lose interest, the lobby loses power, the industry fades, and in whatever amount of time the country is pretty much disarmed. Don't believe that? Just look at how cars are regarded today.

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by marshallnoise View Post
    So now that master Beto O'Rourke actually declared that he wants to take our guns unequivocally, what say you "reasonable restrictions" folks?
    The guy with multiple arrests on his record? He's a has been.

    Even though Biden has plenty of racist statements/stances in his past, it will be Biden V Trump, and if the Dems continue to go full R on their issues, we are unfortunately going to end up with another 4 years of Orange Man.

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsleeve
    replied
    Originally posted by roguetoaster View Post

    A candidate on the verge of being an also ran, not-even-a-VP-contender says no more guns for you baddies. Oh noes, danger.
    Bob is the only stupid enough to say out loud and proud what all the rest on that stage wet dream about when it come to 2a issues. They in general agree 100% with those things.

    Leave a comment:


  • marshallnoise
    replied
    Originally posted by roguetoaster View Post

    A candidate on the verge of being an also ran, not-even-a-VP-contender says no more guns for you baddies. Oh noes, danger.
    Nice spin. Beta said what everyone WANTS to say on the left.

    "Indeed, O’Rourke isn’t alone. None of the other nine candidates on the debate stage contradicted him on his proposal to require owners of the two popular styles of assault rifles to sell them to the government. Two candidates — New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker and California Sen. Kamala Harris — have also called for mandatory buybacks of assault weapons. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar, asked if she agreed with O’Rourke Thursday night, allowed only that she preferred a voluntary buyback to a mandatory one."

    https://www.apnews.com/07f65423a9814f1b9279afd0fba0a50c

    Don't be an idiot, please.

    Leave a comment:


  • roguetoaster
    replied
    Originally posted by marshallnoise View Post
    So now that master Beto O'Rourke actually declared that he wants to take our guns unequivocally, what say you "reasonable restrictions" folks?
    A candidate on the verge of being an also ran, not-even-a-VP-contender says no more guns for you baddies. Oh noes, danger.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • myinfernalbmw
    replied
    Originally posted by z31maniac View Post

    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • mrsleeve
    replied
    ^
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by myinfernalbmw View Post
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • myinfernalbmw
    replied
    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.
    Last edited by myinfernalbmw; 08-21-2019, 06:13 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mach schnell
    replied
    Originally posted by myinfernalbmw View Post
    Cale's from Canada so...
    That explains a lot.

    Canada: France’ ’’’s whiny cousin.

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by myinfernalbmw View Post
    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%).


    Leave a comment:


  • myinfernalbmw
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • z31maniac
    replied
    Originally posted by myinfernalbmw View Post
    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.

    ​​​​​​

    Leave a comment:


  • myinfernalbmw
    replied
    I found this pichur to illustrate

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X