(September 3, 2019 at 4:23 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Over-reaction to a theoretical threat is the hallmark of the mentally  imbalanced.

I agree. Huge difference between stating the fact that we have a firearm violence epidemic, which is not an over reaction, we do, and "I NEED MY FIREARM EVERY WAKING MOMENT OF MY LIFE" which is an over reaction.

But to be fair to those who buy that Rambo bullshit, I do blame the marketing of firearm CEOs, their corporate lobbyists and the GOP.

My favorite part of this is seeing all the ammoxsexuals lose their collective minds.

---

(September 3, 2019 at 5:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote:

(September 3, 2019 at 4:23 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Over-reaction to a theoretical threat is the hallmark of the mentally  imbalanced.

I agree. Huge difference between stating the fact that we have a firearm violence epidemic, which is not an over reaction, we do, and "I NEED MY FIREARM EVERY WAKING MOMENT OF MY LIFE" which is an over reaction.

But to be fair to those who buy that Rambo bullshit, I do blame the marketing of firearm CEOs, their corporate lobbyists and the GOP.

They have done studies and found a good guy with a gun would either botched the entire thing by either getting shot since they lack the proper training-and or they would be mistaken as the shooter.

(September 3, 2019 at 11:15 pm)Atomic Monster Wrote: My favorite part of this is seeing all the ammoxsexuals lose their collective minds.

---

(September 3, 2019 at 5:02 pm)Brian37 Wrote: I agree. Huge difference between stating the fact that we have a firearm violence epidemic, which is not an over reaction, we do, and "I NEED MY FIREARM EVERY WAKING MOMENT OF MY LIFE" which is an over reaction.

But to be fair to those who buy that Rambo bullshit, I do blame the marketing of firearm CEOs, their corporate lobbyists and the GOP.

They have done studies and found a good guy with a gun would either botched the entire thing by either getting shot since they lack the proper training-and or they would be mistaken as the shooter.

Produce said study.

Or at least the identity of this nefarious "they" that did said "study".

You' ll have to forgive my skepticism.

I wasn't aware that second guessing hypothetical situations was a valid scientific method.

(awaiting the comdemnation I' m sure to receive for not believing without question)

(September 4, 2019 at 1:53 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 3, 2019 at 11:15 pm)Atomic Monster Wrote: My favorite part of this is seeing all the ammoxsexuals lose their collective minds.

---

They have done studies and found a good guy with a gun would either botched the entire thing by either getting shot since they lack the proper training-and or they would be mistaken as the shooter.

Produce said study.

Or at least the identity of this nefarious "they" that did said "study".

You' ll have to forgive my skepticism.

I wasn't aware that second guessing hypothetical situations was a valid scientific method.

(awaiting the comdemnation I' m sure to receive for not believing without question)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/...jels.12219

Excerpt from the abstract:

Quote: ...generates statistically significant estimates showing RTC laws increase overall violent crime. Our synthetic control approach also finds that RTC laws are associated with 13–15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates 10 years after adoption.

It appears that giving more people permission to carry guns tends to increase violent crime, rather than the opposite.

Boru

Untrained shooters would add chaos, not reduce it. Sadly, we may have a lot of John Wick wannabees in the future.

(September 4, 2019 at 4:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(September 4, 2019 at 1:53 am)onlinebiker Wrote: Produce said study.

Or at least the identity of this nefarious "they" that did said "study".

You' ll have to forgive my skepticism.

I wasn't aware that second guessing hypothetical situations was a valid scientific method.

(awaiting the comdemnation I' m sure to receive for not believing without question)

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/...jels.12219

Excerpt from the abstract:

Quote: ...generates statistically significant estimates showing RTC laws increase overall violent crime. Our synthetic control approach also finds that RTC laws are associated with 13–15 percent higher aggregate violent crime rates 10 years after adoption.

It appears that giving more people permission to carry guns tends to increase violent crime, rather than the opposite.

Boru

"Generates statistically significant estimates" = we are guessing.


Like I said - I wasn' t aware second guessing hypothetical situations was a valid scientific method.


But, if ya like it - call it gospel.

All God's children got their gospels.

(September 4, 2019 at 5:58 am)onlinebiker Wrote:

(September 4, 2019 at 4:04 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/...jels.12219

Excerpt from the abstract:


It appears that giving more people permission to carry guns tends to increase violent crime, rather than the opposite.

Boru

"Generates statistically significant estimates" = we are guessing.


Like I said - I wasn' t aware second guessing hypothetical situations was a valid scientific method.


But, if ya like it - call it gospel.

What the fuck is the fucking point of fucking asking for the fucking study if you aren't going to fucking READ the fucking thing?? 

Honestly, mate - you're making it a chore for me to stay on your side.

Boru

Whoa! Casual dismissiveness is a legit debating technique, isn't it?

(September 4, 2019 at 6:23 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Whoa! Casual dismissiveness is a legit debating technique, isn't it?

And dismissing it based on four words from the abstract.  Not the study itself or the methodology or the sources cited or the conclusions reached.  The fucking abstract.

Boru