Las Vegas shooting thread moved to polyass

[k2skier112]

Looks like Beer Drinker is not delusional

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank...rate-edges-up/

why does your graph start at 1993?
were guns invented then?
how will your graph change if you move the start date back, 30, 50 years?

[Grape_Ape]

The data really says otherwise as compared to supposedly civilized nations.

I'm going to let this go now since it's pretty clear that BD and I are not communicating at all, especially in light of all the data posted and this ridiculous insistence that the US is not more dangerous with regard to gun violence.

I appreciate your effort, though. Beer drinker has oodles of time on his hands to cherry pick data to defend his flawed "america is safer with more guns" argument while he waits for dooshes to show up to buy dooshmobiles from his high-end car dealership.

[Mazderati]

*used car dealership

[Grape_Ape]

*used car dealership

Yes...the devil's in the details.

[Alaskan Rover]

tanner died bro
the ski po po blew him ups

That song pretty much sums up the whole discussion. Thanks SFB. Did I just say that? Wonders never cease, eh?

[Skidog]

I don’t think the gun JONGs out there who like to play firearm expert realize how devastating a 12 gauge with slugs you can pickup at Walmart are. I Would take one over a 223 any day for “protection”, YMMV

i just think that in the hands of those "less" experinced a shotgun offers a level of simplicity. Load it with buckshot and you dont have to aim perfect to hit target. I would think the "less" experienced, when faced with an intruder, might not be so accurate. plus that sound when you load a round could scare some invaders enough to simply split before a shot is fired. Like you said YMMV..yes shotguns can do a lot of damage.

[neufox47]

The solution is simple in concept but impossible in execution. Ban all guns that do not require a manual ejection / load. Even if we stop producing them there are millions on the market that will exist indefinitely. So we are basically fucked.

No serious examination of the scientific evidence has ever shown that more guns equals less crime.

No one thinks Joe Blow should own nuclear bombs, few people think all guns should be banned. Almost everyone thinks the answer is somewhere in the middle. Almost unlimited access to semiauto rifles and pistols seems like a dumb place to draw that line.

Many people buy a gun to commit suicide. Indicating that they may not do it if they didn't have access to a firearm. Also, most / many suicide attempts are botched, but rarely with guns.

[Bobby Stainless]

*used car dealership

Im so hurt by this.

Where's the Pagani?

[Game Over]

No serious examination of the scientific evidence has ever shown that more guns equals less crime.

Link to such examination?

[Bobby Stainless]

No serious examination of the scientific evidence has ever shown that more guns equals less crime.

Well... Except for all the FBI backed data I posted.

[Bobby Stainless]

while he waits for dooshes to show up to buy dooshmobiles from his high-end car dealership.

This is pretty accurate, actually.

[muted]

Christ! You guys shout down and name call anyone with a different take on a situation. This always happens on the guns issue but it happens in nearly every other thread too. I get that you guys just want an echo chamber to make you feel better, that there are other people who think just like you, so you must be right... but it really is disgusting.

Different takes are great, just don't come with straw man arguments, cherry picked data, and false equivalences and then act all supreme like BeerDrinker. That's why people lose patience and tell others to fuck off.

[Mazderati]

Im so hurt by this.

Where's the Pagani?

This is at least the third edit. Did you need time for a fourth?

[Game Over]

Different takes are great, just don't come with straw man arguments, cherry picked data, and false equivalences and then act all supreme like BeerDrinker. That's why people lose patience and tell others to fuck off.

Beer Drinker provided evidence. I'd be interested in some contrary evidence that supports a different conclusion.

[Bobby Stainless]

This is at least the third edit. Did you need time for a fourth?

I was going to brag about something else, but decided the used Pagani fit best.

I've got your dream car on the way too.

[frorider]

Re: overall homicides by gun trend vs mass shooting trends in particular — it’s not illogical to separate the two.

Overall homicide rate (by gun or other weapon) is driven by many many factors. E.g. percentage of population under 30. E.g. general crime rate. E.g. domestic violence trends or countervailing factors thereof.

I think the reason the national conversation focuses on availability of quasi military grade firepower availability after a mass shooting like this is because these large scale slaughters are happening roughly 3x as often now compared to two decades ago (tons of studies on this, various conclusions; my data generally come from vox.com). And it is affecting our society’s overall expectations re: safety at large gatherings. Those big events (music etc) are an expression of community...but the new normal is an expectation of high level gated security and maybe some patrolling helicopters overhead. That’s kinda fucked up & it’s not hard to understand why many folks on the right or left are wondering what could be done to reduce the frequency or amt killed in these statistically rare but psychologically impactful events.

Many care less about people shooting each other in a big drug deal gone bad. It doesn’t affect whether they go out to a large public event, or their sense of safety at the event.

When I was 20, a series of loud cracking noises at a concert meant firecrackers or a car backfiring. Now people run for cover.

[Skidog]

Beer Drinker provided evidence. I'd be interested in some contrary evidence that supports a different conclusion.

I would too, but theres the rub...there is little to no data to the contrary to BD's data...but its not always about data..

I know a bunch of us watched that Vietnam Burns special on PBS, one of the parts that caught me was when they discussed how they used the "supercomputer" of the time (punchcard) with all possible war data at the time, and the machine spit out one card that said we won in 1965, the computer model was after 1965, so...data doesnt always paint the entire picture. IMHO.

[54-46]

The US accepts gun ownership with relatively few restrictions, and also accepts any deaths and injuries that may occur. Don't see it changing much, if at all, as a result of Las Vegas.

Shouting in the wind is the image that comes to my mind.

[jgb@etree]

I would too, but theres the rub...there is little to no data to the contrary to BD's data...but its not always about data.

LMAO. No confirmation bias here.

[Bobby Stainless]

I would too, but theres the rub...there is little to no data to the contrary to BD's data...but its not always about data..

I know a bunch of us watched that Vietnam Burns special on PBS, one of the parts that caught me was when they discussed how they used the "supercomputer" of the time (punchcard) with all possible war data at the time, and the machine spit out one card that said we won in 1965, the computer model was after 1965, so...data doesnt always paint the entire picture. IMHO.

[wooley12]

Compared to other 1st world countries, I think maybe the US is just a violent country. Who knows why? Look at our national anthem. Our mission statement .

FIFY to begin to find an answer.

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country, should leave us no more?
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave,
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation.
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust.'
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

[Bobby Stainless]

Mr. Rodgers dropping knowledge.

https://youtu.be/L0qlnUQ0Mvc?t=156

[toast2266]

Statistically, the number of guns in the US doesn't correlate with violent crime rates. Gun ownership has increased steadily since the 40's. Violent crime increased until about 1990, then declined.

So the argument that less guns will, in and of itself, reduce violent crime is false (at least based on historical data). But the argument that more guns will, in and of itself, make the country safer is equally false (again, based on historical data).

[Bobby Stainless]

Maybe if you say it, it will be different.

I tried to post pictures and shit.

[MultiVerse]

Statistically, the number of guns in the US doesn't correlate with violent crime rates. Gun ownership has increased steadily since the 40's. Violent crime increased until about 1990, then declined.

That's because there are probably other reasons for the drop in crime since 1990, making this aspect of the discussion a red herring when it comes to guns. The drop in crime since the 90s is strongly correlated with lead abatement, especially ending the use of leaded gasoline.

More here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexkna.../#551b7eb112c4

There are three basic reasons why this theory should be believed. First, as Drum points out, the numbers correlate almost perfectly. "If you add a lag time of 23 years," he writes. "Lead emissions from automobiles explain 90 percent of the variation in violent crime in America. Toddlers who ingested high levels of lead in the '40s and '50s really were more likely to become violent criminals in the '60s, '70s, and '80s."