Florida High School Shooting

[fskimospy]

It was never established based on utility, it was established based on principle. So why is utility ever coming into the discussion?

Because that's the standard we use for restricting all constitutional rights and yes, every constitutional right is restricted. It's always a cost/benefit analysis between how much we gain from not restricting it vs. how much we gain from restricting it. Free speech is probably THE foundational principle of our country, yet it is routinely restricted, entirely on a utility basis.

 

[SlowSpyder]

It is the definition of whataboutism. The costs or virtues of gun rights restrictions exist entirely independently of the others.



Right, your response to tens of thousands of deaths is that it's a fun hobby. And yes, the use of a gun to kill 17 people is a gun issue. I mean duh.

com·pare
kəmˈper/
verb
verb: compare; 3rd person present: compares; past tense: compared; past participle: compared; gerund or present participle: comparing

1. 1.
   estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.
   "individual schools compared their facilities with those of others in the area"
   synonyms: contrast, juxtapose, collate, differentiate
   "we compared the data sets"
   • point out the resemblances to; liken to.
     "her novel was compared to the work of Daniel Defoe"
     synonyms: liken to, equate to, analogize to; More
     
     
   • draw an analogy between one thing and (another) for the purposes of explanation or clarification.
     "he compared the religions to different paths toward the peak of the same mountain"

I love how you blame guns for suicides. It displays your anti-2A craziness, makes me happy to donate to pro-gun organizations.

 

[mdram]

Because that's the standard we use for restricting all constitutional rights and yes, every constitutional right is restricted. It's always a cost/benefit analysis between how much we gain from not restricting it vs. how much we gain from restricting it. Free speech is probably THE foundational principle of our country, yet it is routinely restricted, entirely on a utility basis.

so we should restrict voting rights too, and religious?

 

[ch33zw1z]

com·pare
kəmˈper/
verb
verb: compare; 3rd person present: compares; past tense: compared; past participle: compared; gerund or present participle: comparing

1. 1.
   estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.
   "individual schools compared their facilities with those of others in the area"
   synonyms: contrast, juxtapose, collate, differentiate
   "we compared the data sets"
   • point out the resemblances to; liken to.
     "her novel was compared to the work of Daniel Defoe"
     synonyms: liken to, equate to, analogize to; More
     
     
   • draw an analogy between one thing and (another) for the purposes of explanation or clarification.
     "he compared the religions to different paths toward the peak of the same mountain"

I love how you blame guns for suicides. It displays your anti-2A craziness, makes me happy to donate to pro-gun organizations.

Cool story bro.

 

[realibrad]

Empirical research shows that ownership and homicide/suicide risk are significantly correlated. This isn't really open to dispute.

Nobody is disputing it, so calm down son. What I was showing is that there is a lot of variability and that if you look at just the ownership rates you will not get as much done unless you include other factors.

If you look at this study, and look at table 2, what do you see?

Variable IRR (95% CI) P Interpretation
Gun ownership 1.009 (1.004, 1.014) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%

Percentage Black 1.052 (1.037, 1.068) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%

Gini coefficient 1.046 (1.003, 1.092) .037 For each 0.01 increase in Gini coefficient, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.6%

Violent crime rate 1.048 (1.010, 1.087) .013 For each increase of 1/1000 in violent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.8%

Nonviolent crime rate 1.008 (1.003, 1.013) .002 For each increase of 1/1000 in nonviolent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.8%

Incarceration rate 0.995 (0.991, 0.999) .027 For each increase of 1/10 000 in incarceration rate, firearm homicide rate decreased by 0.5%

Looking at this, why would we expect to just go after ownership?

 

[fskimospy]

Nobody is disputing it, so calm down son. What I was showing is that there is a lot of variability and that if you look at just the ownership rates you will not get as much done unless you include other factors.

If you look at this study, and look at table 2, what do you see?

Variable IRR (95% CI) P Interpretation
Gun ownership 1.009 (1.004, 1.014) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%

Percentage Black 1.052 (1.037, 1.068) .001 For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%

Gini coefficient 1.046 (1.003, 1.092) .037 For each 0.01 increase in Gini coefficient, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.6%

Violent crime rate 1.048 (1.010, 1.087) .013 For each increase of 1/1000 in violent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.8%

Nonviolent crime rate 1.008 (1.003, 1.013) .002 For each increase of 1/1000 in nonviolent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.8%

Incarceration rate 0.995 (0.991, 0.999) .027 For each increase of 1/10 000 in incarceration rate, firearm homicide rate decreased by 0.5%

Looking at this, why would we expect to just go after ownership?

Calm down? Huh?

Literally no one has ever argued to only address gun violence through gun ownership and you've already been told this repeatedly, so you can rest assured that's not an issue. I'm not sure why you think saying that gun violence has multiple causes is a meaningful thing to bring to this discussion as it is common knowledge. It's like if we were discussing the efficacy of a cancer drug and you kept saying 'but LOTS of things affect cancer survival!' No shit, but that has no bearing on whether or not that drug is effective.

 

[SMOGZINN]

so we should restrict voting rights too, and religious?

We do both.

We have rules on who can vote and when. If you are under 18 you can't vote. If you are male and have not signed up to selective service you can't vote. In most states if you have been convicted of a felony you can't vote. The SCOTUS has a case before it right now on if a state can restrict people from voting based on what they are wearing.

Ditto for religious freedoms. Just try telling your local police that body in your freezer was a human sacrifice to your deity and see if you are protected. SCOTUS is also hearing a case currently on if a person can refuse a public service based on religious freedom.

 

[mdram]

We do both.

We have rules on who can vote and when. If you are under 18 you can't vote. If you are male and have not signed up to selective service you can't vote. In most states if you have been convicted of a felony you can't vote. The SCOTUS has a case before it right now on if a state can restrict people from voting based on what they are wearing.

Ditto for religious freedoms. Just try telling your local police that body in your freezer was a human sacrifice to your deity and see if you are protected. SCOTUS is also hearing a case currently on if a person can refuse a public service based on religious freedom.

let me rephrase.
should we restrict voting and religion the same as gun rights?

 

[realibrad]

Calm down? Huh?

Literally no one has ever argued to only address gun violence through gun ownership and you've already been told this repeatedly, so you can rest assured that's not an issue. I'm not sure why you think saying that gun violence has multiple causes is a meaningful thing to bring to this discussion as it is common knowledge. It's like if we were discussing the efficacy of a cancer drug and you kept saying 'but LOTS of things affect cancer survival!' No shit, but that has no bearing on whether or not that drug is effective.

First, yes they have and I already linked it in my posts to Young. So yeah enjoy that.

Second, the discussion is now about stopping gun deaths. So, if we are looking at stopping gun deaths (treating cancer) then why not talk about the things that will reduce things the most (all things that affect cancer survival that are largest)?

 

[Fanatical Meat]

let me rephrase.
should we restrict voting and religion the same as gun rights?

What about....

Seriously the time will arrive, you should think about a compromise otherwise all the people writing the rules will not have your input.

 

[fskimospy]

com·pare
kəmˈper/
verb
verb: compare; 3rd person present: compares; past tense: compared; past participle: compared; gerund or present participle: comparing

1. 1.
   estimate, measure, or note the similarity or dissimilarity between.
   "individual schools compared their facilities with those of others in the area"
   synonyms: contrast, juxtapose, collate, differentiate
   "we compared the data sets"
   • point out the resemblances to; liken to.
     "her novel was compared to the work of Daniel Defoe"
     synonyms: liken to, equate to, analogize to; More
     
     
   • draw an analogy between one thing and (another) for the purposes of explanation or clarification.
     "he compared the religions to different paths toward the peak of the same mountain"

I love how you blame guns for suicides. It displays your anti-2A craziness, makes me happy to donate to pro-gun organizations.

More childish lashing out. If your donations to gun organizations are based in any way on whether or not you like someone on the internet that's extremely funny to me.

As for 'blaming' guns for suicides, I'm not 'blaming' anything. I'm simply pointing out the empirically established fact that gun ownership is a large risk factor in suicides.

 

[brandonbull]

Are you really that dishonest? Brandonbull dishonestly claimed several warnings.

The FBI admits they dropped the ball. I'm not seeing any admissions from Rick Scott or local authorities as to their own part. Quite the contrary. Just pin it on he FBI, call for the director to resign over a very low level mistake.

It's shameful.

We know of 2 different tips to the FBI and the FBI Director stated that the FBI did not follow protocol. Tell me again how I'm being dishonest?

 

[momeNt]

Because that's the standard we use for restricting all constitutional rights and yes, every constitutional right is restricted. It's always a cost/benefit analysis between how much we gain from not restricting it vs. how much we gain from restricting it. Free speech is probably THE foundational principle of our country, yet it is routinely restricted, entirely on a utility basis.

I don't think they are same. Yelling fire is not the same as OWNING a gun.

 

[fskimospy]

First, yes they have and I already linked it in my posts to Young. So yeah enjoy that.

I haven't seen any post to that effect, so you'll have to help me out there. Even if that's true it's a position that virtually no one holds, so arguing against it is a waste of everyone's time.

Second, the discussion is now about stopping gun deaths. So, if we are looking at stopping gun deaths (treating cancer) then why not talk about the things that will reduce things the most (all things that affect cancer survival that are largest)?

This is absolute silliness. First, we discuss things like income inequality all the time. Second, we are specifically trying to debate the effectiveness of gun control policy in reducing gun deaths. Whether other things do as well is irrelevant as they simply serve as confounding variables.

 

[brandonbull]

Surprised no one has said they missed 9/11.

I'm not sure if the FBI did, but that might be more of a DHS issue.

 

[FerrelGeek]

So let's disarm inner city Chicago, NOLA, Baltimore, Detroit, DC, Philly... Do that, and that red bar by the US will slide significantly to the left. You're all about sliding to the left, so you should be all over that.

Also, since this thread started with yet another tragic mass shooting, let's disarm dems in general. If you look at the profiles of the mass shootings over the last 10-odd years, pretty much the only stand-out non lib was that racist bastard Dylann Roof.

Next to the above, we have to find some way of dealing with keeping with mental issues from getting guns. I've stated that before. I fully understand that it a tough issue and that there may never be a great solution, but a frank discussion on this is obviously needed.

Likely or unlikely isn't the problem, this is. Make you wonder about that "developed country" tag for the US. As for that constitutional thing tell it to conservatives who keep trying to privatize the post office.

 

[brandonbull]

Lol Stefan Molyneux. He is truly the definition of what a stupid person thinks a smart person sounds like. One of the dumbest people on the Internet, and that’s saying a lot.

I'd say you, zinfamous, and a few other P&N posters have Stefan Molyneux holding cases of beer.

 

[Kwatt]

Because that's the standard we use for restricting all constitutional rights and yes, every constitutional right is restricted. It's always a cost/benefit analysis between how much we gain from not restricting it vs. how much we gain from restricting it. Free speech is probably THE foundational principle of our country, yet it is routinely restricted, entirely on a utility basis.

Is it "whataboutism" to compare it to free speech?

.

 

[realibrad]

I haven't seen any post to that effect, so you'll have to help me out there. Even if that's true it's a position that virtually no one holds, so arguing against it is a waste of everyone's time.



This is absolute silliness. First, we discuss things like income inequality all the time. Second, we are specifically trying to debate the effectiveness of gun control policy in reducing gun deaths. Whether other things do as well is irrelevant as they simply serve as confounding variables.

Ah, so your argument is that we are talking about gun deaths, but only one factor that is not even the largest factor. Why is it that the conversation, in your opinion, should be limited to a factor that is admittedly not the largest driving factor? I am concerned about gun deaths and want to reduce them as much as possible. That includes restricting guns, as well as other things. You seem to only be worried about gun deaths and how to remove some of them but not other causes. Seems weird.

 

[realibrad]

I'd say you, zinfamous, and a few other P&N posters have Stefan Molyneux holding cases of beer.

No, Molyneux is a bit off for sure.

http://www.fdrliberated.com/the-day-joe-rogan-discovered-the-real-stefan-molyneux/

 

[fskimospy]

Ah, so your argument is that we are talking about gun deaths, but only one factor that is not even the largest factor. Why is it that the conversation, in your opinion, should be limited to a factor that is admittedly not the largest driving factor? I am concerned about gun deaths and want to reduce them as much as possible. That includes restricting guns, as well as other things.

My opinion is that when two policies are not inextricably linked or dependent on each other we should should discuss one policy at a time because it's the only way to have a rational discussion. Otherwise it devolves into things like one person saying 'I think we should have universal background checks for guns' and someone else replying 'yes, but what about income inequality???' Not a recipe for productive discussion.

You seem to only be worried about gun deaths and how to remove some of them but not other causes. Seems weird.

I think you may have noticed that you frequently have difficulty understanding what people are saying on here, am I right? This thread is a good example, in fact. In most cases where you see things that are weird it's likely because you're running into this comprehension problem again, not because what people think is actually weird.

When people discuss solutions to problems they usually focus on one solution at a time when attempting to evaluate it. That's because if you focus on everything all at once it becomes an incomprehensible mess. Sure we could attempt to discuss gun violence by simultaneously attempting to discuss solutions to income/wealth inequality, race relations, mass incarceration, and gun availability all at once, but that would be nearly impossible to have a coherent conversation about all of those things simultaneously. It's certainly beyond my abilities, at least. Hence, you look at one at a time.

 

[feralkid]

I'm not sure if the FBI did, but that might be more of a DHS issue.

DHS definitely missed 9/11; of course they'll likely blame it on the fact that they didn't exist yet.

 

[glenn1]

Second, we are specifically trying to debate the effectiveness of gun control policy in reducing gun deaths.

Maybe that's what you want to debate, the rest of us are debating something entirely different than effectiveness of a gun control policy we haven't even agreed to. Your wording is akin to someone saying "we're trying to debate the effectiveness of restrictions on religion in reducing the instance of Islamic extremism" since the goal is just as debatable as the means.

The rest of us are discussing whether a potential reduction in gun deaths is worth the reduction of civil liberties including the right to own and shoot guns "just for amusement." And yes, even *gasp* whether "reducing gun deaths" is the proper measuring stick at all. Yeah I want to prevent mass shootings also but I also don't think that police shooting someone in the midst of attacking/attempting to kill another person is a "bad" gun death, or someone killing another while defending themselves from rape or their own murder is a "bad" gun death.

 

[brandonbull]

u honestly offended by that flash game?

I and anyone else with the mental capacity beyond a 10 year old knows the intent of the game and it's no different than that of morons trying to sell more guns for the same reason. It's some cheap political statement used to ridicule and bully people into an anti-gun stance by using the deaths of 17 kids. The only thing missing is the same retread trifecta of calling people racist, xenophobe, and anti-LGBT because they say thoughts and prayers.

 

[Thebobo]

I'm not sure if the FBI did, but that might be more of a DHS issue.

Maybe I am not understanding your reply because I thought it was common knowledge that the FBI had been warned about suspicious people taking flight lessons before 9/ll. And that DHS was not formed until a year after 9/ll.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-was-warned-about-flight-schools/

Two months before the suicide hijackings, an FBI agent in Arizona alerted Washington headquarters that several Middle Easterners were training at a U.S. aviation school and recommended contacting other schools nationwide where Arabs might be studying.