More gun news: Trump & evidence for gun control

 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
First things first, Donny is actually backing some gun control. Of course, he's as vague as always and doesn't say much of substance, but props to him for at least trying and making comments against the NRA.

NY Times - Trump Stuns Lawmakers With Seeming Embrace of Comprehensive Gun Control

Quote
WASHINGTON — President Trump stunned Republicans on live television Wednesday by embracing gun control and urging a group of lawmakers at the White House to resurrect gun safety legislation that has been opposed for years by the powerful National Rifle Association and the vast majority of his party.

In a remarkable meeting, the president veered wildly from the N.R.A. playbook in front of giddy Democrats and stone-faced Republicans. He called for comprehensive gun control legislation that would expand background checks to weapons purchased at gun shows and on the internet, keep guns from mentally ill people, secure schools and restrict gun sales for some young adults. He even suggested a conversation on an assault weapons ban.

At one point, Mr. Trump suggested that law enforcement authorities should have the power to seize guns from mentally ill people or others who could present a danger without first going to court. “I like taking the guns early,” he said, adding, “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”

The declarations prompted a frantic series of calls from N.R.A. lobbyists to their allies on Capitol Hill and a statement from the group calling the ideas that Mr. Trump expressed “bad policy.” Republican lawmakers suggested to reporters that they remained opposed to gun control measures.

Not only has this left his subreddit temporarily in shambles (dozens of T_D veterans have been banned just for quoting what Trump said but remember guys, it's the leftists who are emotional snowflakes and can't deal with facts over feelings or something), but it's amazing how the same people supporting him now would've called for little less than public lynchings had Obama ever said that guns should just be taken when seemingly a good idea to the police involved. That said though, bad Donny for bailing on due process.

Second, RAND has just concluded another massive and lengthy study on the topic of gun control.

Quote
Passing an assault weapons ban might prevent 170 mass shooting deaths a year in the US, experts who support gun control estimate. Passing a universal background check law could prevent 1,100 gun homicides each year. Raising the age limit for buying firearms could prevent 1,600 homicides and suicides.

These are some of the new estimates in a groundbreaking study of the potential impact of American gun control laws. The non-partisan analysis, based on a review of existing gun policy research and a survey of the best guesses of both gun rights and gun control experts, was conducted by the Rand Corporation, which spent two years and more than $1m on the project.


The research is further explained here, but it can basically be summed up as "many types of gun control work, they're proven to be effective at saving lives and reducing crime, and it would do a lot of good if it would be expanded in the US". It also states something that I've been saying for years, namely that there's a dire need for a lot more research on American gun violence and the impact of gun control rules, as much is still unknown and there isn't a lot of evidence either way when it comes to some aspects of it. Unfortunately, there still exist budgetary restrictions on what some of the best equipped institutions like the CDC can do in terms of gun research (for those who don't know, the CDC came out with some very factual reporting in the 90's but because it spelled bad news for the gun lobby they've since been limited from researching gun violence because that's the right thing to do or something), so that's a pretty big shame. This isn't very surprising as the amount of evidence in favor of this has been growing for years, but it's always interesting to see these kinds of huge studies from excellent institutions confirm it even more.


 
DAS B00T x2
| Cultural Appropriator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DAS B00T x2
IP: Logged

36,971 posts
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.

Second, RAND has just concluded another massive and lengthy study on the topic of gun control.

Quote
Passing an assault weapons ban might prevent 170 mass shooting deaths a year in the US, experts who support gun control estimate.
Gotta say, fam, that's way too low for me to support any kind  of legislation on.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 

Second, RAND has just concluded another massive and lengthy study on the topic of gun control.

Quote
Passing an assault weapons ban might prevent 170 mass shooting deaths a year in the US, experts who support gun control estimate.
Gotta say, fam, that's way too low for me to support any kind  of legislation on.
Yeah, it's just an estimate. The study itself mentions that it's likely to be higher but they're being conservative in their predictions and are refraining from making wild assumptions when there's no or not much supporting evidence, which I can definitely appreciate.

I don't think this should really be used to just pass any specific policy, but it does help. The tool on their website lets you perform impact assessments from different kinds of regulations. If you combine the stricter gun control rules they looked at, they expect firearm homicides, firearm suicides, and incidental gun killings to drop by almost half, other violent crime by 25%, and mass shootings by over 40%, as well as other beneficial effects. I'm not saying this to try and change your mind, but I think you need to look at the cumulative effects of the entire package or a combination of parts thereof rather than what one specific policy would do for already a relatively rare type of gun killing. Perhaps those 170 deaths won't do it for you, but the 6,000 murder victims, the general violent crime enabled by firearms, the suicide rates and whatnot might.
Last Edit: March 02, 2018, 07:40:53 PM by Flee


Vien | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Vien
IP: Logged

13,133 posts
Just some bloke who wanted to be anyone but himself.
They didn't even ban the modified 3D printer that can etch out an unregistered AR15 receiver from a block of steel.


Genghis Khan | Heroic Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Karjala takaisin
IP: Logged

1,734 posts
 
They didn't even ban the modified 3D printer that can etch out an unregistered AR15 receiver from a block of steel.
Ya, gun control wouldn't work because people can print guns at home using 3D printer.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,422 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
They didn't even ban the modified 3D printer that can etch out an unregistered AR15 receiver from a block of steel.
Ya, gun control wouldn't work because people can print guns at home using 3D printer.
Exactly


maverick | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Maverick
IP: Logged

3,730 posts
 
They didn't even ban the modified 3D printer that can etch out an unregistered AR15 receiver from a block of steel.
Ya, gun control wouldn't work because people can print guns at home using 3D printer.
We also have to remember the crucifixion of Jesus never would have been possible if the Romans hadn’t taken away his guns.


 
challengerX
| custom title
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: challengerX
IP: Logged

41,422 posts
I DONT GIVE A SINGLE -blam!- MOTHER -blam!-ER ITS A MOTHER -blam!-ING FORUM, OH WOW, YOU HAVE THE WORD NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, HOW MOTHER -blam!-ING COOL, NOT, YOUR ARE NOTHING TO ME BUT A BRAINWASHED PIECE OF SHIT BLOGGER, PEOPLE ONLY LIKE YOU BECAUSE YOU HAVE NINJA BELOW YOUR NAME, SO PLEASE PUNCH YOURAELF IN THE FACE AND STAB YOUR EYE BECAUSE YOU ARE NOTHING BUT A PIECE OF SHIT OF SOCIETY
Also in 2001 A Space Odyssey when the American apes declare independence and write the second amendment they bear arms legally and that's how they win in the movie if not they wouldn't have been able to finish the movie


Vegeta Wars | Posting Spree
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Vegeta Wars
IP: Logged

113 posts
 
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
Also in 2001 A Space Odyssey when the American apes declare independence and write the second amendment they bear arms legally and that's how they win in the movie if not they wouldn't have been able to finish the movie
can't believe i didn't see this before, wow I LOVE guns now fuck liberals


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
It is proven that gun control only makes things worse, even in areas with strict gun control like Chicago and D.C. it increased GUN CRIME!
On the off-chance that you're not just another troll, this is factually false and downright uninformed to say.
Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 01:54:46 PM by Flee


Vegeta Wars | Posting Spree
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Vegeta Wars
IP: Logged

113 posts
 
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Genghis Khan | Heroic Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Karjala takaisin
IP: Logged

1,734 posts
 


The real answer is restoring firearm freedom and doing away with horrible drug prohibition.
It won't happen if the democrats have the house and senate.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
No, it's not. It's educated and backed by experience.

https://winteryknight.com/2012/12/03/crime-rates-in-chicago-and-dc-drop-after-gun-control-laws-are-struck-down-3/
Written by John Lott, a widely discredited economist with no experience in public policy and criminology, who's borderline fraudulent and has a wikipedia page that's largely about his "controversies" such as him being paid by the NRA for his research and having falsified peer review. Poor and biased source that doesn't have much going for it. Anyone with any knowledge on crime trends knows that it's largely meaningless to evaluate them like this by ignoring other initiatives contributing to this and not looking at the larger picture (homicides actually shot up in the year of the gun ban being repealed and the rates were actually pretty consistent and stable in the years after before rapidly increasing again). Chicago's crime problems come from it being the "crime capital" long before gun control laws were even a thing. It doesn't have high crime rates because of strict gun control, it has strict gun control because it has high crime rates and when comparing these rates to gun regulation initiatives in the city, there's a case to be made that they've had a positive impact. It's also a generally poor example to use either way as it's an island of stricter gun control rules surrounded by areas with lax restrictions that simply import the guns that are used in crime. It also completely fails when you compare them to certain other cities such as St. Louis which is in a state with very lax gun control rules and yet is still the most violent city in all of the US.

I'm not going to say that it's definitive proof that gun control works but they most definitely aren't proof that it doesn't either. You focusing on a rescinded policy 10 years ago while ignoring the actual problem of where the guns came from doesn't do anything to back up your poor initial argument that "it's proven that gun control makes things worse" and that it actually increased crime in two cities. It's a very shortsighted and uninformed thing to say and try to make a point out of.

Quote
Places like Kennesaw, GA, where firearm ownership is REQUIRED BY LAW, have virtually no crime.
This is actually both false and misleading, as the law doesn't do anything and crime rates in towns like that already are low.

Quote
Citizens are also better able to stop criminals than police are, as well. If anyone should be disarmed you need to start with them.
Again, a very questionable claim not really backed up by facts. The whole defensive gun use debate is iffy at best, but there's strong evidence that states with more guns and looser gun control laws do not prevent, deter or stop more crimes than others but are instead associated with more gun violence and higher violent crime rates.

Quote
"Law-abiding American citizens using guns in self-defense during 2003 shot and killed two and one-half times as many criminals as police did, and with fewer than one-fifth as many incidents as police where an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal (2% versus 11%)."
"Criminals shot dead" is a pretty horrible metric of whose better at stopping crime. There's also not actually a source for that claim anywhere in there.

Quote
Over half of all firearm crime here is due to gangs, which is the fault of the illegal drug laws.
Source? The DoJ's National Gang Center data indicates that only a relatively small part of all gun homicides in the US are gang-related, so I'm definitely interested in evidence to the contrary.
 
Quote
You're not seeing all of the variables here.
That's an interesting thing to say for someone who literally just made the argument that gun control only increases gun crime based on the correlation between a single policy change in a particular city and its crime stats the 6 following months, especially so when in response to a 400+ page long research report that evaluates the findings of literally dozens and dozens of peer reviewed studies on this topic. Come on now... If anything, you're the one ignoring variables by cherrypicking an example and pretending that correlation equates to causation while conveniently ignoring the rest of the story.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,709 posts
YouTube


Vegeta Wars | Posting Spree
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Vegeta Wars
IP: Logged

113 posts
 
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.


Vegeta Wars | Posting Spree
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Vegeta Wars
IP: Logged

113 posts
 
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.
Last Edit: March 27, 2018, 06:47:20 PM by Vegeta Wars


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,709 posts
this is why i don't bother with the whole "cite your sources" game, complete waste of time

edit:
don't like my post you fucking idiot, i'm insulting you
Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 06:33:12 PM by Shhhhhh


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
YouTube


His sources were no better or less biased than mine, actually.
Lol. You had two sources. One is "Wintery Knight", an anonymous, heavily religious and very much right wing and pro-gun blogger with zero credentials citing a 6 year old Fox News editorial by, as I already pointed out, a discredited and nearly fraudulent NRA-financed economist whose research is so shoddy that even other right wing institutions like Cato have distanced themselves from him. The other is nothing more than an opinion piece by a climate change denier who didn't provide any links to his sources and cited long debunked research from the 90's that was so incorrect and misleading that even the DoJ got involved in the gun debate with a press release stating that it's in no way reliable. Excellent and unbiased sources man.

Mine were by PhD's in public health and law, the RAND Corporation, the Yale Institution for Social and Policy Studies, the University of Chicago Crime Lab, the International Business Times providing a factual overview of gun control in Chicago, a Snopes article filled with references, the Scientific American Journal and the Live Science Magazine (both providing an index of dozens of peer reviewed studies) and the official Department of Justice's National Gang Center.

It's very disingenuous to imply these are equal or even comparable, and the fact that you've been unable to respond to any of my arguments and counter-points very much adds to that.
Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 06:31:50 PM by Flee


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
this is why i don't bother with the whole "cite your sources" game, complete waste of time
I disagree. Citing your sources is fundamentally important and not at all a waste of time. It allows people to assess the validity of your arguments and find more information on the topic. Even if both sides provide equally sound sources, it just illustrates that there's more research to be done and that there's no decisive or stronger evidence either way. But most of the time, that doesn't really happen and we run into a situation like this where there is a clear difference in the reliability and quantity of the evidence. If one side cites a thousand peer reviewed studies and policy statements by medical institutions showing that vaccines don't cause autism and the other links to mommynaturalmedicine.blogspot.com who claims they do because vaccinations have a substance in it she can't pronounce, I think it's pretty clear which side is more accurate and carries more weight. Without sources that we can assess, question or criticize, all we're left with is a "he said she said" kind of ordeal where both can make absurd claims without any factual basis to them.

Also, I'm not just doing this for him. It's very unlikely you'll convince anyone of anything in an online debate, no matter how many facts and reason is involved. But since we're on an open forum, other people will read this too and they might care about the validity of our points. And in this, I trust that most people here who can see both parties making a point will agree that policy experts, Yale, UChicago, governmental research institutions and 30+ peer reviewed sources are more reliable than a right wing pro-life and pro-gun anonymous blogger with zero credentials. Maybe you were so easily swayed by his last post because you didn't have time to actually check out the sources we gave, but they're not even comparable in terms of bias, reliability, expertise and validity.
Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 06:33:23 PM by Flee


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

45,709 posts
i think most people have pretty much made up their minds on this subject

no one's actually interested in learning or having a discussion, because we're talking about what a lot of people view to be inalienable birthrights, and no amount of posting sources or statistics is going to change people's attitudes there
Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 06:47:10 PM by Shhhhhh


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
And why are these states surrounding Chicago not as bad off?
That's a strange question. I'm sure you're aware that Mexico has some major issues with violent crime and shootings, right? Just like Chicago, Mexico has pretty strict gun control rules but they don't have that much effect because lax gun laws in the US cause tens of thousands of guns crossing the border to the cartels. It's estimated that 2000 American guns are smuggled into Mexico every single day as a consequence of the loose gun control rules in America. Maybe you'd understand it better if I rephrased your question as "why is the USA, a country bordering Mexico, not as bad off"? I'm sure you'll agree that there's more differences between the countries than just their gun laws, no?

But to briefly answer your question, there's several reasons. As I already said, Chicago is a historical crime capital. It's globally notorious for its gang culture and was the home city of Al Capone and the original gangsters back in the early 1900's. It has a major opioid crisis, its police force has actually been relatively undercut compared to other major cities, it's got poor (social) housing, large high poverty areas with little social support, job opportunities and access to good schooling. This drives a large influx from guns from surrounding states where they're easier to get. There's entire books written on crime trends in Chicago and this Quora Thread provides a nice overview with references and sources.

And again, I just want to remind of you cities like St. Louis which have a higher violent crime and homicide rate than Chicago despite having some of the loosest gun control laws in the country. Poverty, lack of social mobility, gang culture and drugs have long been proven to go relate to higher crime rates, so you framing this as if Chicago's gun control is somehow to blame for the situation is incredibly disingenuous and misleading.

Also, just to entertain your line of thought from earlier. You made the point that gun control doesn't work because of the (very questionable) claim that crime went down with less restrictions on firearms. Well in 2013, Chicago got rid of a gun owners registry and allowed concealed carry in public. This was arguably the most significant loosening of its gun laws ever. The two following years, the amount of people wounded and killed by guns increased significantly. By 2016, the amount of people murdered in Chicago had almost doubled. How could this possibly have happened? You said gun control doesn't work and only increases crime rates. Surely the introduction of concealed carry would allow people to defend themselves and deter or stop criminals, no? So why are we seeing the opposite? Why are there more shootings, more murders and more violent crime immediately after removing gun control rules?

Of course, no one who knows anything about crime trends and criminology would jump to the conclusion that it's the concealed carry that contributed to the spike in homicides. There's too many other factors to definitively prove correlation, let alone causation. My point just is that two can play the game of, as you put it, "not seeing all the variables here" and pushing a very narrow argument that lacks nuance and ignores key information. So let's not do that, alright?
Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 07:06:52 PM by Flee


 
DAS B00T x2
| Cultural Appropriator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DAS B00T x2
IP: Logged

36,971 posts
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Ban cities. Boom, gun problem solved.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
i think most people have pretty much made up their minds on this subject

no one's actually interested in learning or having a discussion, because we're talking about what a lot of people view to be inalienable birthrights, and no amount of posting sources or statistics is going to change people's attitudes there
I kind of agree. I personally am very interested in discussing and learning about this. I'm perfectly content with my country's gun laws and am not really personally affected by or emotionally invested in American gun violence so for me this is just an academic interest where I would not at all mind being proven wrong. I'm even planning on submitting this as my supplementary thesis if I ever get to defend my PhD so my mind is far from being made up. Anyone is free and welcome to prove me wrong. You're right in saying that most people are pretty entrenched in their views at this point, but I still like talking about it and hope at least some people get something out of it.

Also, I don't think the two parts of this are necessarily inseperable. Yeah, most people know where they stand on the whole "inalienable human right" thing but that doesn't mean the whole gun control debate is settled. It's entirely possible to for example believe that gun control works and can be highly beneficial but still think that the freedom to own a gun is ultimately more important and that "shall not be infringed" should be taken literally as the loss of innocent lives is worth it. There might not be any sense in trying to change someone's opinion on that as indeed facts and figures don't matter here, but the topic of gun control in concreto is still something else. We can employ the scientific method, conduct research and assess the impact of policies and legislation. With relatively high certainty, we can conclude whether something works and how a situation can be improved on the basis of facts and statistics. And that is all separate from the debate on rights or privileges. It's why I ignored his comment that "people have every right to defend themselves" and just responded to his claims about gun control affecting crime rates as these are largely verifiable. And even though he might not care, perhaps someone else reading his comment might now realize where the flaws in his reasoning lie.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
Ban cities. Boom, gun problem solved.
No more school shootings without a school to shoot up, amirite?


 
DAS B00T x2
| Cultural Appropriator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DAS B00T x2
IP: Logged

36,971 posts
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Ban cities. Boom, gun problem solved.
No more school shootings without a school to shoot up, amirite?
Basically. And no more urban youth to terrorize the streets or urban police to murder random civilians.


Vegeta Wars | Posting Spree
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Vegeta Wars
IP: Logged

113 posts
 
This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.
Last Edit: March 26, 2018, 11:40:11 PM by Vegeta Wars


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
Snopes and Rand are garbage, not sure about the others, but many were biased towards government. Also, I posted Forbes. You haven't presented a credible argument for me to respond to.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhsieh/2018/03/20/any-study-of-gun-violence-should-include-how-guns-save-lives/#3b1464d5edc5
Oh fuck off.

RAND is one of the most esteemed and influential bipartisan research groups and think tanks in the US. It has a global reputation and over 30 Nobel Prize recipients have been associated with the institution. Their gun control report is one of the most comprehensive I’ve ever read and cites dozens upon dozens of peer reviewed studies on both sides of the debate. It’s highly detailed, 400 pages long and written by a dozen PhD’s and experts in fields ranging from psychology and economics to public health policy and criminology. The Snopes article is very factual and simply provides the actual text of the law, the available crime stats and interviews with Kennesaw’s major and chief of police to point out the obvious flaws in your post. If you’re actually interested in having a debate that’s, in your own words, “educated and backed by experience”, either offer some counter-points showing where my sources are inaccurate / lacking or at least be enough of a man to admit you’re just dismissing them as “garbage” because you’re shamefully biased and don’t actually care about the truth.

You posted an online opinion piece on Forbes. It’s not actually written by any of the Forbes staff members or editors, nor is it in any way scientific, peer reviewed or actual research. Anyone can submit and publish opinion pieces there. And as I already said, the post is written by a climate change denying architect with zero expertise in economics, criminology or public policy. It’s shoddily put together and filled with vague statements like “Newsweek reported that in 2003…” without providing any actual source or proper reference. It also brings up statistics from nearly 30 year old studies that have since been repeatedly debunked and disproven. It’s a bad opinion piece that is unreliable, unscientific and worth very little. It’s embarrassing that you’re trying to pretend that this is equivalent to and as valid as the evidence I provided.

And I did provide a sourced counter-point to literally every argument you made, no matter how poor and obviously uninformed to anyone who’s even slightly familiar with the topic of gun control. You just ignored almost all of it, refused to respond to my questions and instead attempted (but failed) to discredit my sources while displaying a lack of common sense and even basic knowledge of public policy and gun control. “Why do more people get shot in the crime capital of the US than the areas around it?” Damn dude, I'm appalled anyone over the age of 10 would consider that an actual counter-argument.

Also, just to respond to your next Forbes opinion piece, I really am starting to think you’re absolutely clueless about this topic. You clearly didn’t read my sources but apparently also didn’t even bother actually checking your own. Did you just Google “gun control doesn’t work” and link the first results that came up?  Your article makes three points. One, that defensive gun use should be taken into account when researching gun control. Now if you would have actually read the report I linked, you’d see that they dedicate a full chapter to this very thing. Two, that the value of firearm ownership should not be measured in terms of criminals killed – which is the very metric you yourself used earlier. Your own article literally argues against doing the exact thing you did in your previous post. Three, that the impact of gun control should be seen as something separate from the right to own firearms – which is something I already said to Verbatim a few posts up.

For someone who goes around saying we shouldn't believe things without proof and that the debate should be "educated and backed up by experience", you sure are ignorant, clueless and blindly opposed to even considering anything that goes against your preconceptions. What a shame.


 
 
Flee
| Marty Forum Ninja
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Flee
IP: Logged

15,359 posts
 
People like you should really consider being more vocal in this whole debate man. I've been discussing this topic for a while now and can honestly count the number of reasonable pro-gun people I've encountered on both hands (and that includes people in real life). I'm sure it's no different on the other side but so many can't even get past basic platitudes ("criminals don't follow laws, that's why they're criminals duh") let alone actual facts, figures and research. It's damn refreshing being able to discuss these things with someone who doesn't just ignore most of the argument, dismiss high quality research as "garbage" because he doesn't like what the facts have to say, and thinks that "gun control doesn't work because place X has stricter rules but still high crime rates" is the argument that settles it all. More reason and logic might actually make an impact then for once.


Genghis Khan | Heroic Posting Rampage
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Karjala takaisin
IP: Logged

1,734 posts