Gun policy analysis thread.

[Chuck Naill]

Beer gut or central obesity related to Type 2 diabetes

[scottt]

Pharma is not exempt. 😂😂

Not from everything, no, but I am having trouble finding a case where criminal misuse resulted in the drug company getting sued and winning. Do you have one I might read?

Example:
If someone is legally prescribed a drug, then uses that drug to kill another, is the victim's family allowed to sue the drug company?

Thanks.

[dneal]

Assertions without any supporting points, demonstrating continued ignorance to the digital realm.

Chuck, how does the calculus work out if the NYT is on YouTube? Is there any "professional investigational reporting" in this "Visual Investigations" playlist? They make the claim that:

Using evidence that’s hidden in plain sight, our investigative journalists present a definitive account of the news — from the Las Vegas massacre to a chemical attack in Syria.

They might want to update their examples to something more recent, but anyway... What does it say about the NYT that they also have Podcasts?

Chuck, perhaps it was intentional but you seem to have overlooked this post.

Should you cancel your New York Times subscription? Those buffoons are on YouTube and have a podcast, and therefore not worth paying attention to. Right?

Have you been reduced to quoting your own posts?

That’s the best dodge you’ve got? No wonder you didn’t answer the first time.

[scottt]

Herein lies the problem, podcasts and podcasters. It’s second only to YouTube. However, it’s free. You’d need to pay for professional investigational reporting.

In this instance, it was merely someone showing the pages from the ATF's decision, where the different lowers were shown and what 'makes' them a firearm. Don't see the problem there.

[scottt]

Conclusion: The number of guns per capita per country was a strong and independent predictor of firearm-related death in a given country, whereas the predictive power of the mental illness burden was of borderline significance in a multivariable model. Regardless of exact cause and effect, however, the current study debunks the widely quoted hypothesis that guns make a nation safer.

Keywords: Firearm deaths; Gun ownership; Mental illness.

So in a country with a whole lot of guns, there were more gun-related deaths? Did it include the number of defensive gun uses per year? I couldn't find that in the article. Or the lack of prosecution of criminal activity being a factor as well?

[dneal]

Herein lies the problem, podcasts and podcasters. It’s second only to YouTube. However, it’s free. You’d need to pay for professional investigational reporting.

In this instance, it was merely someone showing the pages from the ATF's decision, where the different lowers were shown and what 'makes' them a firearm. Don't see the problem there.

This is a long time hang up for Chuck, and another of the hypocritical positions he maintains. He also watches YouTube, which makes it even more ridiculous.

[Chuck Naill]

I

Herein lies the problem, podcasts and podcasters. It’s second only to YouTube. However, it’s free. You’d need to pay for professional investigational reporting.

In this instance, it was merely someone showing the pages from the ATF's decision, where the different lowers were shown and what 'makes' them a firearm. Don't see the problem there.

This is a long time hang up for Chuck, and another of the hypocritical positions he maintains. He also watches YouTube, which makes it even more ridiculous.

Please explain or interpret your nonsensical post?
Dudette!!

[scottt]

Here's another angle

I read some of those articles, admittedly giving up when the cites reported lead to archives I couldn't easily read.



Guns kill more children each year than auto accidents. -Study was for those aged 24 and under, hardly children.

Discussing firearm safety with a clinician. -I also don't consult my mechanic about heart disease. Most clinicians don't know much, if anything, about firearms.

Claimine someone even witnessing a shooting—increases the probability a young person will be involved in violence within two years -seems rather hard to show a connection there, and I couldn't find one in the article.


One article suggested four laws to make us safer from mass shootings:

The 4 laws:
Require permits to purchase - national registry
Also, given the high number of legal purchases in mass shootings, this law would not do anything.

Ban individuals convicted of any violent crime from gun purchase.
-If it is a felony, this already exists. What they want is for any crime of violence to result in prohibition of gun ownership. So the two neighbors who get into a heated argument, and one punches the other, that person is now prohibited for life from owning a gun.

Make all serious domestic violence offenders surrender firearms. -Guns aren't taken away unless criminals voluntarily relinquis them to local law enforcement agencies.
Um, if the offenders are legally prohibited from owning guns, isn't this a failure of police to enforce the law?

Although they also want to restrict guns from people with domestic violence restraining orders against them. -So the angry girlfriend/about to be divorced wife who falsely swears out a restraining order prohibits the person from owning guns?

Temporarily ban active alcohol abusers from firearms. -So binge drinkers and DUI offenders lose ability to own firearms. While one can track DUIs, I've seen reports that people have multiple DUIs and still drive in defiance of the law, so if they cannot even enforce that, how to enforce the others?

Really, it comes down to a couple of things: First, current laws are not being enforced, so many believe more laws will not help. Straw purchasers are not being charged, criminals get no bail and are back on the streets. How many times have you heard of a felon with a gun in a crime situation. The felon legally cannot own a gun but does. How about we enforce that first, before discussing more restrictions on law-biding citizens?

Also, agreeing with dneal, if you have a specific point, please state it/them.

[Chuck Naill]

I still own two firearms. They rarely enter my mind.

[scottt]

The point makes itself, but if you insist:

1. Individuals may think that owning guns leads to greater personal safety, but...
2. The evidence is clear that owning guns makes society more dangerous, not less, however...
3. Perceptions/opinions of individuals are often immutable.

It's a loop.


While I cannot be 100% certain, I am confident that a full literature review with accompanying content analysis will confirm the above (extremely brief) summary.

You do not take into account the 500K - 3 million defensive uses of firearms per year. I have yet to read anything that says it does not. That you say evidence shows society is more dangerous, well, let's look at society and prosecute the criminals and see what happens. Currently millions of people have made new gun purchases as a result of the increasing crime. I don't see how you made your point.

While in many cases you are right about point 3, until at least we can try to discuss things without the heavy emotional bias, not much progress will be made I fear.

[dneal]

The point makes itself, but if you insist:

1. Individuals may think that owning guns leads to greater personal safety, but...
2. The evidence is clear that owning guns makes society more dangerous, not less, however...
3. Perceptions/opinions of individuals are often immutable.

It's a loop.


While I cannot be 100% certain, I am confident that a full literature review with accompanying content analysis will confirm the above (extremely brief) summary.

You do not take into account the 500K - 3 million defensive uses of firearms per year. I have yet to read anything that says it does not. That you say evidence shows society is more dangerous, well, let's look at society and prosecute the criminals and see what happens. Currently millions of people have made new gun purchases as a result of the increasing crime. I don't see how you made your point.

While in many cases you are right about point 3, until at least we can try to discuss things without the heavy emotional bias, not much progress will be made I fear.

You might browse the old 2nd Amendment thread before you run too far down this rabbit hole with this poster.

[Chuck Naill]

Yes, read the US Second Amendment!!

[Chip]

Beer gut or central obesity related to Type 2 diabetes

The guy's a Star Valley Mormon. So it must be cheese gut. Or bacon gut. Or ice cream gut.

The question in my mind is what sort of dingbat would wear a pistol to a Republican party meeting?

[scottt]

The point makes itself, but if you insist:

1. Individuals may think that owning guns leads to greater personal safety, but...
2. The evidence is clear that owning guns makes society more dangerous, not less, however...
3. Perceptions/opinions of individuals are often immutable.

It's a loop.


While I cannot be 100% certain, I am confident that a full literature review with accompanying content analysis will confirm the above (extremely brief) summary.

You do not take into account the 500K - 3 million defensive uses of firearms per year. I have yet to read anything that says it does not. That you say evidence shows society is more dangerous, well, let's look at society and prosecute the criminals and see what happens. Currently millions of people have made new gun purchases as a result of the increasing crime. I don't see how you made your point.

While in many cases you are right about point 3, until at least we can try to discuss things without the heavy emotional bias, not much progress will be made I fear.

You might browse the old 2nd Amendment thread before you run too far down this rabbit hole with this poster.

Yeah, I see what you mean. Thanks for the heads-up.

[scottt]

Lots of personal attacks there from @dneal and @724seney.

@dneal, @724seney, @scottt - if you have legitimate supportable concerns about the studies I linked to, please direct those concerns to the authors of the studies. While you're at it perhaps also dash off a quick message to the editors of Nature, Scientific American, and the American Journal of Medicine to ask them why they continue to publish such low-level research. I and others here will of course be most interested in reading any responses you may get.


@724seney, thanks for the plug for my pen sale. Your effort to assist in bringing it to a conclusion is most appreciated!

So you have no opinion, just referring to studies? Interesting.

[dneal]

Lots of personal attacks there from @dneal and @724seney. Disappointing, though unsurprising.

@dneal, @724seney, @scottt - if you have legitimate supportable concerns about the studies I linked to, please direct those concerns to the authors of the studies. While you're at it perhaps also dash off a quick message to the editors of Nature, Scientific American, and the American Journal of Medicine to ask them why they continue to publish such low-level research. I and others here will of course be most interested in reading any responses you may get.


@724seney, thanks for the plug for my pen sale. Your effort to assist in bringing it to a conclusion is most appreciated!

Personal attacks toward who? You? Not yet, but I can if you want. Probably best if you get down off that high-horse.

If scottt is going to engage with you on this topic, or "run down this rabbit hole"; he should be aware of your usually disingenuous approach.

[dneal]

You're about as well versed in gun-studies as you are AI forum bot programming. You don't think we believed that either, do you?

Snarky enough, or should I turn it up another notch?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

From the Noble Eightfold Path, on Right Speech

"He avoids slanderous speech and abstains from it. What he has heard here he does not repeat there, so as to cause dissension there; and what he has heard there he does not repeat here, so as to cause dissension here. Thus, he unites those who are divided; and those who are united he encourages. Concord gladdens him, he delights and rejoices in concord; and it is concord that he spreads by his words."

Slanderous speech is speech intended to create enmity and division, to alienate one person or group from another. The motive behind such speech is generally aversion, resentment of a rival's success or virtues, the intention to tear down others by verbal denigration. Other motives may enter the picture as well: the cruel intention of causing hurt to others, the evil desire to win affection for oneself, the perverse delight in seeing friends divided. [commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi]

[Chip]

Gun studies?

I did a search and there are in fact several university programs on gun studies.

I also came on a useful set of studies by the Rand Corporation. Here are some tables.







"Across all of the 18 policies that we examined, only two—child-access prevention laws and stand-your-ground laws—had evidence that we classified as supportive, our highest evidence rating, for an effect on a particular outcome. Specifically, there is supportive evidence that child-access prevention laws reduce firearm self-injuries (including suicides) and unintentional firearm injuries and deaths among children. In addition, we found supportive evidence that stand-your-ground laws increase firearm homicides."

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-po...-policies.html

[Chuck Naill]

Can we discuss the use and honing of straight razors? LOL!!