NRA to Parkland Teens: You’re Only Relevant Because Your Classmates Died

Honey badger attack. Electric eel in bathtub. Spider in shoe bite. Venomous snake in underwear drawer. Anvil over door. Cut brake lines. Hatchet to the head.

Safe falls on her. Grand piano falls on her. Nail shot through head while building dog house. Falls off ladder while installing Christmas lights. Accidentally backed over while taking groceries from trunk
 
I don't know about that. If it is premeditated it is a much higher chance, but a moment of rage? No. The evidence is reality: people fail to kill each other all the fucking time.

Hell, people can't even kill themselves in a suicide.

Not sure what studies you're citing.

Pretty sure in the time it takes to go purchase a firearm and get back that it's easy to devise another method of murder. Spouses have access to each other when they sleep and their food.
 
Safe falls on her. Grand piano falls on her. Nail shot through head while building dog house. Falls off ladder while installing Christmas lights. Accidentally backed over while taking groceries from trunk

My second wife was killed in a hay fire I set accidentally while burning ants with a magnifying glass
 
th


Got eem

Give that man a beer and high 5 for me
 
Canada currently has far stricter regulation than the US. They can be our canary in the coal mine. When Canada begins door-to-door confiscation I will know it's time to be worried.

The canary has been dead since 1992.

Certain guns were classified as prohibited and then confiscated without compensation. The authorities knew where to go and find them because they were registered.

Hundreds of thousands of pistols were confiscated as well as some shotguns (SPAS because it looked scary) and converted full autos.

There's a propaganda war going on in Canada at the moment.

https://globalnews.ca/news/3894223/canadians-support-outright-ban-guns/

Don't trust polls.
 
Last edited:
Not sure what studies you're citing.

Pretty sure in the time it takes to go purchase a firearm and get back that it's easy to devise another method of murder. Spouses have access to each other when they sleep and their food.

I'm not citing studies as it was you who suggested that there is zero chance they could fail to murder someone. The fact there is an attempted murder charge suggests otherwise. I think it's just common sense really that people fail to kill people all the time. A gun takes a lot of the risk out of it.
 
I put bunch of broken glass in my wife's blender. She was making her stupid breakfast smoothie and the glass shot into her face and now she looks like this...

th
 
Not sure what studies you're citing.

Pretty sure in the time it takes to go purchase a firearm and get back that it's easy to devise another method of murder. Spouses have access to each other when they sleep and their food.

With regards to the value of cooling off / waiting periods:

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/17...ods-brady-act-deaths-homicides-suicides-study
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-laws/policy-areas/gun-sales/waiting-periods/
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/gun-waiting-periods-could-save-hundreds-lives-year-study-says
 
Safe falls on her. Grand piano falls on her. Nail shot through head while building dog house. Falls off ladder while installing Christmas lights. Accidentally backed over while taking groceries from trunk

Giant squid in bathtub drowns her. Buzzard attack.
 
I'm not citing studies as it was you who suggested that there is zero chance they could fail to murder someone. The fact there is an attempted murder charge suggests otherwise. I think it's just common sense really that people fail to kill people all the time. A gun takes a lot of the risk out of it.

Here's what I said.

There's statistically zero people who couldn't kill their spouse, if motivated, without a firearm.

I could drive down to the store right now. Or I could fuck it up by getting in a crash or getting a DUI.



Thanks. I checked out one and quickly noticed they compared it against prior history within the state and made no mention of controlling for the murder decline that's happened nationally.

-so-do-both-the-violent-crime-and-murder-rate-violence-peaked-when-gun-ownership-peaked-in-the-1970s-and-early-1980s.jpg
 
Here's what I said.



I could drive down to the store right now. Or I could fuck it up by getting in a crash or getting a DUI.




Thanks. I checked out one and quickly noticed they compared it against prior history within the state and made no mention of controlling for the murder decline that's happened nationally.

-so-do-both-the-violent-crime-and-murder-rate-violence-peaked-when-gun-ownership-peaked-in-the-1970s-and-early-1980s.jpg

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/gun-waiting-periods-could-save-hundreds-lives-year-study-says

I quoted this one originally. This refers to studies conducted at Harvard university which concluded a 17% drop off in homicides and 6% drop in suicides. The study can be found directly here but here is an extract:

where rit is the natural logarithm of the rate of violence (homicides or suicides) per 100,000 adult residents, Wit is an indicator for handgun waiting periods and Bit is an indicator for whether background checks are required for dealer handgun sales. We include an indicator variable for background checks on handgun purchases from licensed firearm dealers because a major source of policy variation in our dataset (the Brady Act) also affected background check policies. As seen in Tables 1 and 2, the estimated impact of background checks depends on model specification. We also incorporate time-varying state-level control variables that may influence rates of gun violence (8), Xit, including alcohol consumption, poverty, income, urbanization, black population, and seven age groups. Summary statistics for these variables are included in Tables S1 and S2. The αi and λt parameters represent state and year fixed effects. These fixed effects control for stable, state-specific factors affecting violence and time-varying factors that affect all states identically. It is impossible to control for all time-varying, state-specific factors that affect gun violence. For example, policing tactics, drug use, and environmental factors such as lead exposure might not have changed uniformly across states over time and may also affect violence. However, the consistency between our estimates during the short (Brady interim) period and the longer period (including all waiting period changes since 1970) supports our interpretation of the results. The model parameters are estimated via least squares weighted by state population. We then calculate the percentage effect of waiting periods on violence using the estimator described by Kennedy (12).

What they are doing is a multivariate regression analysis and they specifically state they are covering for time varying control variables (and to a much greater extent where they include covering changes to alcohol consumption, poverty, income, urbanisation, black population and age groups). They definitely know what they are doing in Harvard.

Another key finding is:

Tables 1 and 2 also show that waiting periods have no significant effect on non-gun homicides, suggesting that people subject to waiting period laws do not substitute other means of committing homicide. This is consistent with other research (9) finding no increase in non-gun homicides in response to policies restricting access to firearms. Results for non-gun suicides, however, are less clear; some specifications suggest partial substitution toward non-gun methods of suicide in response to handgun waiting periods.

As far as gun studies go this is peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Direct access to the study means you can read it yourself without having to go through the editorialisation that a news source has. While I majored in economics this is a bit more than what I am capable of fully interpreting but the process I learned is the process they are using, and if done correctly is mathematically robust.

I've made a few edits along the way as I have added extra info.
 
Last edited:
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/10/gun-waiting-periods-could-save-hundreds-lives-year-study-says

I quoted this one originally. This refers to studies conducted at Harvard university which concluded a 17% drop off in homicides and 6% drop in suicides. The study can be found directly here but here is an extract:



What they are doing is a multivariate regression analysis and they specifically state they are covering for time varying control variables (and to a much greater extent where they include covering changes to alcohol consumption, poverty, income, urbanisation, black population and age groups). They definitely know what they are doing in Harvard.

Another key finding is:



As far as gun studies go this is peer reviewed and published in a reputable journal. Direct access to the study means you can read it yourself without having to go through the editorialisation that a news source has. While I majored in economics this is a bit more than what I am capable of fully interpreting but the process I learned is the process they are using, and if done correctly is mathematically robust.

I've made a few edits along the way as I have added extra info.

Thanks. I'll agree Harvard knows what they are doing. Pretty sure they also made the news for lying about an important study in the past. But let's say it's true. Ok. There was a minor decrease. As to whether or not those hundreds of deaths justify violating civil liberties by systematically denying a right, albeit temporarily. If we amended the 2nd I'd have no problem with a waiting period on one's first firearm.

For handguns I basically live with a two week wait because that's how long the permit takes (which you acquire after purchasing the gun). Same with long guns if I don't already have the permit (which is good for one year, whereas pistol permits are firearm specific).
 
People in America can say damn near anything they want about companies. I've seen companies destroyed because short sellers spread fear and untruths about companies

Unless it's true.
 
Honestly; almost certainly no, but he was also just pointing the gun out the window and firing into a crowd with a .223.

If the goal was maximum fatalities there are other semi-auto rifles that would be deadlier. AP4 LR-308, R-25, P-415, or a Barrett. Those are all designed for larger game.

Oh you assume he was trying to do something besides maximum casualties!

Like what?
 
It's so easy to warp people's minds with polls and justify authoritarianism. If I had a ton of power and control I would totally mess with the polls.

Much easier to tell stupid people things like france has a bigger mass shooting problem.
 
Back
Top