I found the cause of all the shootings

SuperMatt said:
Well, this federal judge wasn’t fooled by the NRA’s bankruptcy filing. How can an organization raking in millions of dollars in donations be bankrupt? Answer? They’re not. They were just filing as leverage against the possible dissolution of their organization by the NY Attorney General.

Click to expand...

Do we even need the NRA anymore, even from a 2nd amendment supporter's point of view? Seems individual gun owners are keenly aware when their rights are supposedly under threat. Odds are they're already posted up armed outside a government building pissed off about something else. So they can just add that threat to their agenda for the day.
 
Chew Toy McCoy said:
www.hsph.harvard.edu

Gun Threats and Self-Defense Gun Use

1-3. Guns are not used millions of times each year in self-defense We use epidemiological theory to explain why the “false positive” problem for rare events can lead to large overestimates of the i…
www.hsph.harvard.edu www.hsph.harvard.edu

Not to worry, gun ownership also defends you against an onslaught of facts.
Click to expand...
You need no fancy math for this.
1. If guns improved public safety, the USA would be the safest country on Earth. (Of course this is a fallacy, but follows the same logic pro-gun advocates use to show a correlation between increasing civilian guns and decreasing violent crime rates).
2. You would have to prove that armed households have lower homicide risks. You'll be shocked what meta-analysis of pooled data shows:

1622057244654.png

www.acpjournals.org

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 160, No 2

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Research suggests that access to firearms in the home increases the risk for violent death. Purpose: To understand current estimates of the association between firearm...
www.acpjournals.org

Pooled hazard ratio is 2, meaning it is 2x more likely to be murdered if you have direct access to a gun. It's 3-fold if you happen to be a female. One can always argue that those living in less safe neighborhoods purchase guns, but yet again, this means that the guns did a horrible job cancelling out neighborhood crime rates. Considering how these number look in other Western nations it's quite clear what the issue is.
 
I always view a series of variables that often give quite accurate results.

Guns kill people
Mad people kill people
Mad people with guns kill lots of people
Mad people without guns kill fewer people
People kill people
People with easy access to guns kill lots of people

Guns for me are an element that makes a situation much worse and I’m bloody glad they are rare where I live. I wouldn’t trust the people in my town walking around with them that’s for sure [emoji2957]
 
P_X said:
You need no fancy math for this.
1. If guns improved public safety, the USA would be the safest country on Earth. (Of course this is a fallacy, but follows the same logic pro-gun advocates use to show a correlation between increasing civilian guns and decreasing violent crime rates).
2. You would have to prove that armed households have lower homicide risks. You'll be shocked what meta-analysis of pooled data shows:

View attachment 5468
www.acpjournals.org

The Accessibility of Firearms and Risk for Suicide and Homicide Victimization Among Household Members: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: Annals of Internal Medicine: Vol 160, No 2

This article has been corrected. The original version (PDF) is appended to this article as a Supplement. Background: Research suggests that access to firearms in the home increases the risk for violent death. Purpose: To understand current estimates of the association between firearm...
www.acpjournals.org

Pooled hazard ratio is 2, meaning it is 2x more likely to be murdered if you have direct access to a gun. It's 3-fold if you happen to be a female. One can always argue that those living in less safe neighborhoods purchase guns, but yet again, this means that the guns did a horrible job cancelling out neighborhood crime rates. Considering how these number look in other Western nations it's quite clear what the issue is.
Click to expand...

Since 2nd amendment nuts tend to be right leaning, we’re talking people who want to block support to millions because they know or saw a lazy person on the news who receives welfare. Similarly they are fine with millions getting killed by guns in the off chance they’ll get to be a hero with theirs.
 
JayMysteri0 said:
👀

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1399906790003728384/
Click to expand...
The most irritating thing is that these people's stupidity diffuses to other neighborhoods and guns are like the material manifestation of that stupidity. On reddit somebody said that rural white gun owners are doing everything right and minorities ruin the reputation of legal gun owners. Since then, I found this:

  • About three out of four household property crimes involving stolen firearms occurred in households headed by white non-Hispanic persons.
  • From 2005 through 2010, the majority of household burglaries (56 percent) or other property crimes (59 percent) involving stolen firearms occurred in the South.
  • Households in rural areas experienced a disproportionate percentage of burglaries involving stolen firearms (34 percent), compared to the overall percentage of U.S. households located in rural areas (17 percent).
Click to expand...
bjs.ojp.gov

Firearms Stolen During Household Burglaries and Other Property Crimes, 2005-2010

ADVANCE FOR RELEASE AT 10:00 A.M. EDT Bureau of Justice Statistics THURSDAY, NOVMEBER 8, 2012 Contact: Kara McCarthy (202) 307-1241 HTTP://WWW.BJS.GOV/ After hours: (202) 598-0556 ABOUT 1.4 MILLION GUNS STOLEN DURING HOUSEHOLD BURGLARIES
bjs.ojp.gov bjs.ojp.gov

According to these data, every single part of the above sentiment is not only wrong, but actually the opposite is true for each. This is from a gov site where conservatives consider valid when it comes to crimes committed by Blacks...


Or this shit:
OLUSIA COUNTY, Fla. – Two foster children broke into a Volusia County home, Tuesday night, then used guns they found inside the residence -- including an AK-47 -- to repeatedly fire at deputies for about 30 minutes, according to sheriff’s officials.

The Volusia County Sheriff’s Office said 12-year-old Travis O’Brien and 14-year-old Nicole Jackson face felony charges of attempted first-degree murder of law enforcement officers and armed burglary.
Click to expand...
www.clickorlando.com

‘Unbelievable:’ Children, 12 and 14, use AK-47, other guns in shooting rampage on Volusia deputies

Two juveniles broke into a home then used guns they found inside the residence to fire at deputies on Tuesday, according to the Volusia County Sheriff’s Office.
www.clickorlando.com www.clickorlando.com

The cultural issue is that we are worried about the cops, terrified about what the kids did and how this went down, but nobody mentions that maybe, just maybe the person who has an AK47 and a shotgun lying around in their home obviously did not store these firearms appropriately. If we were honest about all of these sentiments, this would be a unifying notion between the Black and Blue Lives Matter movements. We should start fining people heavily for facilitating the theft of their guns.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So, just so you know the obvious, this is already a topic in the other place.

Just thought I'd share it here, along with a highlight that I know would ironically bunch up panties over there.

www.npr.org

U.S. Judge Overturns California's Ban On Assault Weapons

Judge Rodger Benitez ruled that the state was unlawfully depriving Californians of weapons allowed in most other states and by the Supreme Court. Gov. Gavin Newsom has condemned the decision.
www.npr.org www.npr.org
Click to expand...
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — A federal judge Friday overturned California's three-decade-old ban on assault weapons, ruling that it violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego ruled that the state's definition of illegal military-style rifles unlawfully deprives law-abiding Californians of weapons commonly allowed in most other states and by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"Under no level of heightened scrutiny can the law survive," Benitez said. He issued a permanent injunction against enforcement of the law but stayed it for 30 days to give state Attorney General Rob Bonta time to appeal.

Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the decision, calling it "a direct threat to public safety and the lives of innocent Californians, period."
Click to expand...

One of my favorite observations in topics that involve judges is that the judges personal dispositions and / or observations are very important for some to merit dismissing the judge's ruling.

In his 94-page ruling, the judge spoke favorably of modern weapons, said they were overwhelmingly used for legal reasons. Emphasis mine

"Like the Swiss Army knife, the popular AR-15 rifle is a perfect combination of home defense weapon and homeland defense equipment. Good for both home and battle," the judge said in his ruling's introduction.

That comparison "completely undermines the credibility of this decision and is a slap in the face to the families who've lost loved ones to this weapon," Newsom said in a statement. "We're not backing down from this fight, and we'll continue pushing for common sense gun laws that will save lives."
Click to expand...

I wonder if the crowd that likes to scream that judge's can have bias, will be raising that point here?
 
JayMysteri0 said:
So, just so you know the obvious, this is already a topic in the other place.

Just thought I'd share it here, along with a highlight that I know would ironically bunch up panties over there.




One of my favorite observations in topics that involve judges is that the judges personal dispositions and / or observations are very important for some to merit dismissing the judge's ruling.



I wonder if the crowd that likes to scream that judge's can have bias, will be raising that point here?
Click to expand...
Sure, an AR-15 is just like a Swiss Army knife. This judge‘s ruling is so antithetical to every other ruling on gun regulations… if judges keep ruling that the “well regulated” part of the 2nd amendment no longer applies, we will have to amend the constitution!

I think this decision will be overturned quickly on appeal. More restrictive rules are in place all over the country, and have been upheld. This law has been in place for 30 years. I don’t like it when some “judge” does something like this. He must be angling for a possible run for another office… signaling to the right-wingers that he loves guns. He knows this flies in the face of precedent.
 
SuperMatt said:
In his argument, he says being killed by a knife is 7x more likely than being killed with an AR-15. If true, doesn’t that mean the law banning assault weapons is having the intended effect? This guy is bought and paid for by the NRA.

Also, a machine gun is dangerous, but an AR-15 isn’t? WTF?
Click to expand...
This swiss army analogy sounded like it came from some marketing material...
1. Cali's homicide rate is like 25% lower than US average
2. 70% of homicides in Cali are committed using a firearm.
3. The knife analogy is ridiculous, a knife is an everyday household item.

That's a long report so we are probably getting the most outrageous snippets from it, but for this reasoning to make sense the Judge would have to prove or at least corroborate that as you said, the low rate of homicides involving AR15s is not secondary to lack of access.
 
JayMysteri0 said:
I am certain I don't think I understand the purpose of any of this, ...besides political theatre.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1404751078621581312/

Can states just decide what federal laws they don't like? Yet still depend on the feds for other things related? Could the feds respond out of concern for the safety of those in the state?
Click to expand...

Local authorities looking to flex a bit of power and justify their positions I would imagine. There is also the popularity factor of attracting votes by the sounds of it. Americans on the whole are very very trusting of their fellow countrymen despite that deep dark desire to occasionally kill the most vulnerable in an indiscriminate and spontaneous fashion.
 
JayMysteri0 said:
I am certain I don't think I understand the purpose of any of this, ...besides political theatre.

https://www.twitter.com/i/web/status/1404751078621581312/

Can states just decide what federal laws they don't like? Yet still depend on the feds for other things related? Could the feds respond out of concern for the safety of those in the state?
Click to expand...
This is what pisses me off. Their free-for-all gun bullshit will supply the surrounding states with illegal guns, and then they'll say that gun regulation doesn't work. And when I point it out, I'll be told that "liberalism is a mental sickness" (happened before).
 
Back
Top