Gun Lovers, You're Screwed.
- Thread starter hanimmal
- Start date
GanjaGreg.
Well-Known Member
I mean you could call anybody an abomination.
Everybody is hated by somebody.
If you would’ve read deeper you’ll see where I said I appreciate gay people for a few different reasons.
I was honestly just trying to match the disrespect.
I got caught up in @UncleBuck foul language.
Now that I’ve smoked a blunt I can see how that was childish.
And I would only buy a gun for self defense.
that’s it.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
GanjaGreg.
Well-Known Member
I really like how we’re finding common ground here buck.
But I can’t let you take that credit.
It was only your fault that I was LABELED a homophobe.
I was never a homophobe,
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
You also never boasted about how you’d shoot a woman who was beating you in a fist fight
That was also my fault
GanjaGreg.
Well-Known Member
man I can’t express on this iPhone how much I appreciate you trying to take responsibility for your actions buck! What a turn around!
But again you were slightly off.
Boasted?
I never spoke highly or eagerly about it..
So take that out and youve got yourself a proper apology
GanjaGreg.
Well-Known Member
You gotta appreciate people like buck.
They serve a valuable purpose in the world.
Like.. umm. Well, damn.
They serve a valuable purpose in the world.
Like.. umm. Well, damn.
Lord Kanti
Well-Known Member
SNL skits have sure gotten stranger over the years.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
I was thinking gun massacred at schools happening regularly was the stranger thing
CunningCanuk
Well-Known Member
I couldn’t go longer than a minute listening to that ignorant fuck.
That was a good take on the comparison. I've long thought something similar, but on the other side, which is that because our tax dollars are used to create the infrastructure for autos and because because you cannot be denied a license if you qualify, then driving actually is veeeeery close to being a right.
One thing I noticed is how he says we've been trying it the republican's way and it hasn't been working, but technically speaking every gun law is a form of gun control and since we've had a million gun laws introduced over the years, then one could argue that we've actually been trying it the democrat's way, and if he truly thinks it's not working, then what? So then I guess the question is, is he really right that's it's not working? I can't find much data that goes back very far, but did find the below from Pew.
So we're a lot better from the peaks in those spikes, but really not that much better from the selected point 53 years ago. Howeverrrrr, if we compare the chart to major gun law events, there was the big one in '68, but we can see that things actually got worse, then another in '86 that *favored gun owners* and we do see a big spike there, then some more gun control laws in '93/'94 and we see a drop. Obviously a very light look at the impact of laws, but one could argue there's only a slightly better than 50% chance that gun laws do anything.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
It is interesting to look at it in the long term considering different events.
I am not sure how you got to 50/50. But I agree it is really hard to know much with the information that is out there. The whole not being able to study guns thing has done a good job at making sure people don't have anything to really look at.
As far as our government doing it the Democrat's way with guns I am not sure what you mean. I really don't care about guns outside of how much it sucks to have nuts walking around with them terrorizing our society. And I understand that this is not just about guns.
But some good checks/regulations on sellers is a pretty good idea. It might also be worth looking at actual insurance on them (thinking of that video) because society is left footing the bill for cleaning up after these shooting sprees/suicides/etc. But that would take actual data to understand if it would cost, which we don't have (that I have seen either).
Was just saying that, if we think those three major bundles of laws definitely had an impact on the subsequent peaks and valleys, then the gun control laws in '68 would be a -1 since the opposite expected result occurred, then pro-gun laws in '86 before the spike would be a +1 since the expected result occurred, then the gun control laws in '93/'94 and the subsequent drop would also be a +1 because the expected result occurred, so basically 2/3's or 66% of those laws resulted in the effect we would expect. And I say "we" because the rise after the '86 pro-gun laws and drop after the '93/'94 gun control laws would be explained as something else by a righty, so a republican would say there's no correlation and the two +1's are nothing more than coincidence. Tough to convey the thought, but hopefully it made some sense.
hanimmal
Well-Known Member
That would be pretty easy data points to put into a regression program to see.
And even something like all the states laws/federal laws timeline with the changes to give a estimate of how statistically effective gun laws are at changing the death rates. Shame the Republicans stopped CDC/universities who receive federal funds from investigating stuff like this over the last 20 years.
DIY-HP-LED
Well-Known Member
That's why the US army used semi automatic weapons since WW2 and depended on fire power. Many soldiers refused to shoot or aim to kill, the 4% figure was the cause of the policy of firepower, spray enough shit out there and hope they hit something.
Interestingly they figure if you tried to collect the guns in America the 4% of say 100 million gun owners, amounts to 4 million people who would kill to keep their gun. I say get them while they are driving, don't go to their house, or knock on the door of their bunker!
Make a list of America's bad cops, but don't fire them, give them the job of confiscating guns for "problem" individuals!