If a person wants to point out that our gun control measures don't work they don't need to torture numbers or flat out make shit up. They haven't. That observation leads into questions of why.

Enhanced background checks have a demonstrable effect on a wide range of crimes, but not mass shootings. Why?

Restrictions on new sales of "assault rifles" have a demonstrable effect on rates of confiscation by law enforcement as well as rates of use in violent crime.
They do not have a demonstrable effect on their use in mass shootings. Why?

Because mass shooters are not inner city thugs mugging people for their pocket change. They are people who can pass background checks, or whose parents can pass background checks. They are people with the disposable income and social status to acquire expensive, and even restricted, firearms. They are people who our gun laws are designed around out of political courtesy or outright headtaking.

The most promising study about the effect of gun control, iirc, largely mirrors federal trace data in their "time to crime" metrics in assessing the brady bill. If you write a law targeting a particular type of firearm, you would expect to see the effects of that law at that date plus the ttt of the specific firearm. For "assault rifles", then, that was about 9 years. Sure enough, one year before it expired....the number of crimes committed with assault rifles dropped off a cliff. There's a shorter ramp now and a much -much- more saturated market. The two things are likely related (or literally the same thing).

We've allowed a separatist movement decades to stockpile weapons inside our country.

(May 11, 2023 at 6:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Flat’s thinking is kinda funny; he wants law-abiding citizens to be armed so they can stop mass shooters. But he also claims that most of these shootings happen in gun free zones. Well, once Joe Public brings his gun to one of these zones, he’s no longer a law-abiding citizen…he’s a criminal.

A possible solution might be to do away with such zones and actually encourage everyone to bring their guns. What could possibly go wrong?

Boru

Well, giving everybody a gun and encouraging them to carry it certainly makes more sense than requiring everybody to wear a mask. At least it is obvious how everybody having a gun is supposed to work, whereas it is not obvious how masks are supposed to work (non-N95 masks obviously cannot directly stop a virus, as it is too small, so we need to make ad-hoc hypotheses to explain how masks are supposed to work). But, still, I am against government intervention until there is evidence that the government intervention is not only cost-effective, but that government is really the best solution. There is such evidence for the policy of forbidding the prophylactic use of antibiotics in agriculture. But there is no such evidence of providing everybody with guns.

Why don't we instruct the cops to just shoot people at random? They're sure to catch a few bad actors in their crosshairs just by necessity.

Straight from gun nuttery to covid nuttery.

Dance puppet.

(May 12, 2023 at 4:42 pm)Angrboda Wrote: Why don't we instruct the cops to just shoot people at random?  They're sure to catch a few bad actors in their crosshairs just by necessity.

Because that would certainly kill more people than it would save?

Not if there are millions of unreported gun crimers out there waving their deagle at the delivery man.....

Give five year olds guns, give guns to the guns, -and- have cops shoot people at random. Voila, problem solved with the judicious application of moar guns.

(May 12, 2023 at 4:39 pm)FlatAssembler Wrote:

(May 11, 2023 at 6:05 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Flat’s thinking is kinda funny; he wants law-abiding citizens to be armed so they can stop mass shooters. But he also claims that most of these shootings happen in gun free zones. Well, once Joe Public brings his gun to one of these zones, he’s no longer a law-abiding citizen…he’s a criminal.

A possible solution might be to do away with such zones and actually encourage everyone to bring their guns. What could possibly go wrong?

Boru

Well, giving everybody a gun and encouraging them to carry it certainly makes more sense than requiring everybody to wear a mask. At least it is obvious how everybody having a gun is supposed to work, whereas it is not obvious how masks are supposed to work (non-N95 masks obviously cannot directly stop a virus, as it is too small, so we need to make ad-hoc hypotheses to explain how masks are supposed to work). But, still, I am against government intervention until there is evidence that the government intervention is not only cost-effective, but that government is really the best solution. There is such evidence for the policy of forbidding the prophylactic use of antibiotics in agriculture. But there is no such evidence of providing everybody with guns.

Try to imagine what would happen if a shooter opens fire in a crowded place - a cinema, a church, a concert.

The shooter starts firing. Joe pulls his gun and starts firing at the shooter. Jim sees Joe do this and starts firing at Joe, thinking he’s the bad guy. Susan is near Jim, sees him shooting, thinks HE’S the bad guy and takes him out. And so on and so on.

While all this is going on, it turns out Joe - being all chubbed up that he finally get to play Rambo - has missed the original shooter (who is continuing with his original agenda) and has taken out three bystanders.

If you give more people more guns, more people will be shot.

Boru

If the bad guys would just wear their N95 masks we would know to pelt them with sesame seeds.

And now he's pushing his Anti Masker nonsense again 

He just has different flavors of nonsense.