Geeto67's Political Playground

[RedRocket1647545505]

Popular opinion right now isn't in support of these types of weapons

 

I said, the popular opinion is that something needs to be done. Not that the specific something is banning assault weapons, or making AR-15's illegal, or anything like that

 

:confused:

 

 

BTW, Dicks pulled this same stunt a few years back and went right back to selling the same shit again, as I imagine they will do once the heat is off.

 

Regardless, I think they should be able to do as they please even if I think they're a bunch of hypocrites in doing so.

[Geeto67]

:confused:

 

Ok, despite the national discourse having drifted to include the discussion concerning assault weapons, prove that the popular (i.e. majority) public opinion that the "something" that should be done shouldn't include "assualt" weapons. Keep in mind that generally speaking that according to independent voting metrics progressives outnumber conservatives. I'll wait.

 

BTW, Dicks pulled this same stunt a few years back and went right back to selling the same shit again, as I imagine they will do once the heat is off.

 

They stopped selling what they designated as assault weapons in Dick's branded stores in 2012. They allowed Field and Stream to continue to carry them as they were more hunting focused (some say they stopped temporarily but it may have been due to inventory shift from the retail stores). That's the real change here - it's not that they stopped and "went back" to selling in all stores a few months later - they made a business decision based on demographics of their shoppers and the statement they are trying to make, and now they have made another.

 

For someone who understands its their right to do so, you seem to want to be hard on them about it, why?

[TTQ B4U]

So, this is what it looks like if you leave it up to the private sector to be the engine of change instead of the government.

 

Popular opinion right now isn't in support of these types of weapons or the events they are being tied to, and the people have been looking to the government for a long time now and it's clear the government is deadlocked and not going to make progress - so it falls to the private sector and the marketplace.

 

It's their right to do it, and honestly good for them. Large companies like this rarely do anything without a financial analysis so they wouldn't do it if they remotely thought it would hurt their business.

 

For those proponents of the "free market" this is what free market sometimes looks like when it crosses the political spectrum.

 

I support their having the ability to do what they did. It's thier company and their call. Same goes for those removing NRA discounts. I don't have to approve or support them and can vote with my wallet if I choose. Just the same, I don't support elected officials taking away the tax breaks of Delta for their removing discounts. That IMO is not the role gov't should play. Just like with Dicks, let the market sort itself out.

 

IMO the whole removal of discounts is likely more of a financial play that happens to correspond to the political climate than it is a true act of good. That's me being cynical though. They have all likely done the math and made a business decision just like any of us would.

[Miller]

[BStowers023]

That's right...until the next company follows Dick's, and the next, and the next.

 

And it's not just AR15's, it's "assault rifles".

 

wtf is an assault rifle anyway? Is that like a rape whistle? Nobody needs a whistle that rapes!

 

 

Yeah but there is a high demand for these rifles, especially right now. The great thing about America is supply typically meets the demand one way or another. Places like Vance's won't stop selling AR-15s because of some butt hurt political activists that are scared of a scary looking gun versus another gun. Until AR-15s are illegal, there will be stores to buy from.

[CRed05]

Yeah but there is a high demand for these rifles, especially right now. The great thing about America is supply typically meets the demand one way or another. Places like Vance's won't stop selling AR-15s because of some butt hurt political activists that are scared of a scary looking gun versus another gun. Until AR-15s are illegal, there will be stores to buy from.

 

That's what I'm afraid of...the ol' slippery slope.

[Geeto67]

Yeah but there is a high demand for these rifles, especially right now. The great thing about America is supply typically meets the demand one way or another. Places like Vance's won't stop selling AR-15s because of some butt hurt political activists that are scared of a scary looking gun versus another gun. Until AR-15s are illegal, there will be stores to buy from.

 

yeah, but don't forget about the invisible hand of the market which will price adjust. If the supply decreases and the demand spikes, the curves readjust and the price goes up. And maybe that's not a bad thing. I'd love to know the demographics on the people that use AR-15's for mass murder, if only there was a way we could pay people to independently study that information.....oh, right...NRA doesn't want that because it would lead to gun control.

 

Anyway, if the AR-15 prices out the demographic that normally follows the profile of a mass shooter, maybe the market solves for it another way. Or not, the demand could lead to increased production which means a glut in the market when the demand spike settles and used ones become dirt cheap.

 

I'd like to think that if a gun gets a certain reputation associated with mass murder it would have had a negative impact on it's sales....except that hasn't been the experience. Any time someone even looks at an AR-15 negatively in the political sphere speculators, preppers, and just general nutballs go out and buy one thinking they will never get the chance to do that ever again. I highly doubt people would go out and buy a car that was used to kill a whole bunch of people, but a gun...Weird world we live in.

 

And the other question is: is the AR-15 being unfairly framed? Is it just scary looking or has it actually been used in a shit ton of mass murders? If only we had independently researched data to drive intelligent decisions making in this area.

[CRed05]

And the other question is, is the AR-15 being unfairly framed? Is it just scary looking or has it actually been used in a shit ton of mass murders? If only we had independently researched data to drive intelligent decisions making in this area.

 

It has been used in mass murders, but so has spears, bow and arrows and vehicles. Have you ever heard of necklacing? Old car tires and gasoline was used to kill on average 244 per month during the early 90's. Killers gonna kill

[TTQ B4U]

yeah, but don't forget about the invisible hand of the market which will price adjust. If the supply decreases and the demand spikes, the curves readjust and the price goes up. And maybe that's not a bad thing. I'd love to know the demographics on the people that use AR-15's for mass murder, if only there was a way we could pay people to independently study that information.....oh, right...NRA doesn't want that because it would lead to gun control.

 

What are you top 5-10 things these studies will reveal? real question as the above you mentioned is silly as the law of supply and demand impact on pricing doesn't need a gov't study. Stores know how to price guns as do manufacturers.

 

 

I'd like to think that if a gun gets a certain reputation associated with mass murder it would have had a negative impact on it's sales....except that hasn't been the experience. Any time someone even looks at an AR-15 negatively in the political sphere speculators, preppers, and just general nutballs go out and buy one thinking they will never get the chance to do that ever again. I highly doubt people would go out and buy a car that was used to kill a whole bunch of people, but a gun...Weird world we live in.

 

The reallity of the above is smart people know that semi automatic rifles don't kill people nor are they the root-cause, thus the reason I have no care in the world about what gun was used in any of these shootings. Not sure if you're just being silly here but that's how I feel.

 

And the other question is: is the AR-15 being unfairly framed? Is it just scary looking or has it actually been used in a shit ton of mass murders? If only we had independently researched data to drive intelligent decisions making in this area.

 

see my above question. not sure what questions your looking to have asked.

[TTQ B4U]

OMG is anyone watching Diane Fienstien and the POTUS? She is so old-school and over dramatic that her and Pelosi flat out need to go. She's ridiculous.

[BStowers023]

Well AR-15s are pretty scary looking and they're full semi-automatic and nobody needs a fully semi-automatic machine gun, duh.

[Geeto67]

What are you top 5-10 things these studies will reveal? real question as the above you mentioned is silly as the law of supply and demand impact on pricing doesn't need a gov't study. Stores know how to price guns as do manufacturers.

 

You oppose gun control full stop, so no matter what I say you aren't open to it.

 

The point of a study is to reveal information, not to go in looking to confirm information. You come in with questions and leave with answers, not the other way around.

 

We already have gun control in this country as it stands, I want to know why isn't it effective? I want to know what are the root cause factors that lead to these shootings and where are the choke points? I want to know if the data suggests that there are some voluntary actions the industry can take that would greatly reduce government intervention? I want to know how much the firearm really is a factor and how much other things are a factor? I'd love to know what effects economics have on the overall market place and if they can have an effect on these shootings as well?

 

In order to do that the people have to stop the false notion that any and all control is bad and they have to be open to learning about this space. The whole reason the Dickey amendment exists in the first place is because a study in the early 1990's showed that the NRA's hard line that "you are always safer with a gun than without" was false. To the NRA an informed public is against their interests.

 

There is no rational argument you can make against information gathering, study, and research in this area. It's only useless to you if your aim is to prevent any progress being made full stop, which is an extremist position. To that end, all I can say is enjoy the more nonsensical proposals that are going to keep coming (and some even get passed) because you can't stop progress, you can only slow it down.

 

 

The reallity of the above is smart people know that semi automatic rifles don't kill people nor are they the root-cause, thus the reason I have no care in the world about what gun was used in any of these shootings. Not sure if you're just being silly here but that's how I feel.

 

You mean the "smart" people that are just making assumptions too because there is no data, analysis, or informed discussion. You mean the "smart" people that are pulling it out of their ass just as much as the other side because there is a choke hold on the flow of information, right?

 

Tim, there are no "smart" people in this situation - everyone is being kept in the dark on purpose for the NRA's overall agenda to frustrate any and all types of gun control. All you have are two different sides arguing about their feelings.

 

Again, you have an extremist position on this so I don't expect rational or intelligent discourse in this area. And it's too bad too, your other post on Dick's was so intelligent and spot on I was actually shocked I was reading a post from you.

 

see my above question. not sure what questions your looking to have asked.

 

All the questions Tim. I want all the questions we can ask in this area to at least have a fighting chance of being asked. Why are you so afraid of information, Tim?

[Geeto67]

It has been used in mass murders, but so has spears, bow and arrows and vehicles. Have you ever heard of necklacing? Old car tires and gasoline was used to kill on average 244 per month during the early 90's. Killers gonna kill

 

Ok, great, if that's really the case then what's wrong with a study to confirm it ?

 

Here's what's really nefarious about the Dickey Amendment. It's an amendment to a budget bill that denies funds to any research that may be used for gun control advocacy. That includes other methods in the context of guns. It's basically a subjective standard that conservatives have used for decades now to kill all sorts of research well beyond just zeroing the budget for the study of gun violence. It's had a chilling effect on the flow of information in this country. Why? what is the NRA so afraid of? or that's right - gun control of any kind that's what they are afraid of.

 

There is a positive to research by the way. If we can use the data to drive a national standard for gun control, then we can fix the interstate possession/carry/conceal travel problems as well. Think of it like driver's licenses - they are all recognized and administered at the state level because the federal government published a voluntary standard for rules of the road and the states adopted it on their own. Why can't we let data establish some standards of truth in this area, and then let the states all come to the same conclusion?

[CRed05]

Ok, great, if that's really the case then what's wrong with a study to confirm it ?

 

Here's what's really nefarious about the Dickey Amendment. It's an amendment to a budget bill that denies funds to any research that may be used for gun control advocacy. That includes other methods in the context of guns. It's basically a subjective standard that conservatives have used for decades now to kill all sorts of research well beyond just zeroing the budget for the study of gun violence. It's had a chilling effect on the flow of information in this country. Why? what is the NRA so afraid of? or that's right - gun control of any kind that's what they are afraid of.

 

I'm not against getting rid of this amendment (I think I'm for it), but I feel like the questions you have been asking, like the number of people killed in a mass shooting, are readily available.

[Geeto67]

I'm not against getting rid of this amendment (I think I'm for it), but I feel like the questions you have been asking, like the number of people killed in a mass shooting, are readily available.

 

I am not asking for the numbers killed in mass shootings, I am asking for someone to study the data on the shooter's lives, the market place, the current system, to cross compare all of it, do root cause analysis, look at commonalities, and really investigate in an impartial way.

 

Collection of Data is only one part and honestly it's the easiest part. The hard part is finding dedicated researchers in this field to analyze the data, compare it to other data points, really investigate it in depth, and draw intelligent conclusions. That costs a lot of money. The federal government is the largest driver of independent research in this country, and it has a very rigid set of standards to insure independence and impartiality. To deny this issue access to that resource is to essentially to ignore any hope of truth in this area.

[wagner]

****DISCLAIMER I KNOW GUNS ARE BAD AND WOULD HAVE LED TO MOAR DEATHS THIS IS JUST TO BRING UP A POINT***

 

Guns are a small part of the problem, people are the bigger part.

 

http://nbc4i.com/2018/02/28/police-thwart-womans-alleged-elementary-school-ax-attack/

 

My mom had a situation when she was a principal where a student went off their meds on their own, attacked the resource officer, ran into the school kitchen and held the staff hostage in there with a knife.

 

After she and another teacher took the kid down and held him there until the cops arrived to haul the little turd away she had to meet with the kid's grandparents.

 

They flat told her it was her fault the kid went off his meds and on the rampage, they can't control him and she needed to do something about it.

[Geeto67]

****DISCLAIMER I KNOW GUNS ARE BAD AND WOULD HAVE LED TO MOAR DEATHS THIS IS JUST TO BRING UP A POINT***

 

Guns are a small part of the problem, people are the bigger part.

 

http://nbc4i.com/2018/02/28/police-thwart-womans-alleged-elementary-school-ax-attack/

 

My mom had a situation when she was a principal where a student went off their meds on their own, attacked the resource officer, ran into the school kitchen and held the staff hostage in there with a knife.

 

After she and another teacher took the kid down and held him there until the cops arrived to haul the little turd away she had to meet with the kid's grandparents.

 

They flat told her it was her fault the kid went off his meds and on the rampage, they can't control him and she needed to do something about it.

 

You hit on a very interesting and intelligent point here Wags. Guns are a part of the problem, people are a part of the problem too. How much each contributes in aggregate is not really known because we can't even study people related to these mass attacks if a gun was involved because it might lead to gun control. We can kind of say in each individual case, and we could study mass knife attacks but honestly they are few and far between and there would be an obvious skew of the data without real comparison material. We can't even drive change in the mental health area because we don't have the research because it can't be studied because it might be used to write gun control. What if a lot of these incidents are all linked to the same or similar medication used to treat mental illness? we can't even find out because we can't pay for independent research to be done in this area because it may be used to write a gun control law as well.

[CRed05]

http://nbc4i.com/2018/02/28/police-thwart-womans-alleged-elementary-school-ax-attack/.

 

 

Killough was still on the fence when police arrived.

 

I don't know, sounds like she made up her mind to me! :dumb:

[TTQ B4U]

You oppose gun control full stop, so no matter what I say you aren't open to it.

 

not sure where you get that from but if that's your opening statement then it sounds like you've got some pretty poor sources of information. in fact I would say when someone asks you a question and notes that it's a real questions vs rhetorical or sarcastic that you might consider taking that at face value. YMMV though.

 

The point of a study is to reveal information, not to go in looking to confirm information. You come in with questions and leave with answers, not the other way around.

 

so what information are you looking to reveal? again, serious question. how do you ask questions or conduct a study if you can't list out the end-game?

 

We already have gun control in this country as it stands, I want to know why isn't it effective?

 

define "isn't effective" or perhaps are you asking how to make it more effective? if the latter, where specifically isn't it effective? is it because mentally ill people have guns, felons get guns, kids are getting guns?

 

I want to know what are the root cause factors that lead to these shootings and where are the choke points?

 

fair question and perhaps one of the key ones. I will say we don't need a study on "guns" to perhaps get the answer as semi-auto guns and rifles have been around for years and that's not what has changed, so I'm sure you can see why the focus of everyone on guns is in question.

 

I want to know if the data suggests that there are some voluntary actions the industry can take that would greatly reduce government intervention?

 

clarify as I'm not sure what you mean but would like to.

 

I want to know how much the firearm really is a factor and how much other things are a factor?

 

Kinda goes with the above about the root-cause right? clarify if it's more.

 

I'd love to know what effects economics have on the overall market place and if they can have an effect on these shootings as well?

 

I don't even see that as a correlation in school shootings so I'm not sure if you're referencing school shootings or shootings in general.

 

In order to do that the people have to stop the false notion that any and all control is bad and they have to be open to learning about this space. The whole reason the Dickey amendment exists in the first place is because a study in the early 1990's showed that the NRA's hard line that "you are always safer with a gun than without" was false. To the NRA an informed public is against their interests.

 

I'm not concerned with what the 1990's showed or what everyone's pitch was back then. I wouldn't say you're "always" anything with or without something. Too many variables involved to claim such certainties.

 

I do think the shootings alone prove that without a force multiplier like a gun, you're odds of a direct confrontation with a shooter a classroom is going to yield you being killed. No studies needed for that. In the case of this Florida shooting and even the CT School shooting, the teachers who dove in front and took the initial rounds to save their kids would have likely had a better chance living and accomplishing a better outcome had they put a round down range at him and on-target vs using themselves as a human shield. YMMV on that though.

 

There is no rational argument you can make against information gathering, study, and research in this area. It's only useless to you if your aim is to prevent any progress being made full stop, which is an extremist position.

 

again, you've made up your mind so it really seems you're the extremist in this exchange not me. I'm the one who is asking you the questions, thus I'm the one looking to engage. If I was being an extremist I would simply not give a shit what you have to say on the matter. Clearly, I'm interested.

 

To that end, all I can say is enjoy the more nonsensical proposals that are going to keep coming (and some even get passed) because you can't stop progress, you can only slow it down.

 

More assumptions on your part. Must be a bad day at work?

 

All you have are two different sides arguing about their feelings.

 

I agree that emotions need removed. I'm not holding my stance on guns for emotional reasons at all. In fact, I would say quite the opposite. That said, I'm not one for "studies" where studies may not be needed. 2+2 is 4, I don't need a congressional study to determine that.

 

your other post on Dick's was so intelligent and spot on I was actually shocked I was reading a post from you.

 

If it shocked you then what does that say of your understanding of me? should you be putting words in my mouth and stating I'm an extremist or perhaps you should "engage" a bit more and put down your hard-line stance a bit?

 

All the questions Tim. I want all the questions we can ask in this area to at least have a fighting chance of being asked. Why are you so afraid of information, Tim?

 

Would I be asking you to clarify your stance and specifics around questions if I didn't want to hear the answers or gain clarity on them? Not sure why you try and personalize it with the use of my name and the word "afraid" as if to provoke something from me but whatever floats your boat. We already know each other man, you don't have to patronize me. Keep it real and perhaps less snarky and perhaps peeps will respond better to you overall. As you would say, don't stoop to that level.

[TTQ B4U]

 

 

 

I don't know, sounds like she made up her mind to me! :dumb:

 

 

 

That's a chick? :fuckyeah: :fuuuu: :lolguy: GTFO!!!

[Geeto67]

not sure where you get that from but if that's your opening statement then it sounds like you've got some pretty poor sources of information. in fact I would say when someone asks you a question and notes that it's a real questions vs rhetorical or sarcastic that you might consider taking that at face value. YMMV though.

 

 

I'm sorry, did someone else write this under you account:

In all honesty, the 2A is important to me and I won't trade it for the lives lost here or in the next shooting. Way too many millions before them also died for all the things that our constitution stands for to just give it away or let people too lazy to fix the real problem chip away at my rights.

 

Anyone calling for a repeal of the 2A or for severe infringement should move to the UK or elsewhere.

 

 

 

 

so what information are you looking to reveal? again, serious question. how do you ask questions or conduct a study if you can't list out the end-game?

 

Tim, I am not sure if you understand how actual scientific research works in this setting. There is a general outline, but they don't go in saying "we are going to prove X", they go in saying we are going to study this factor and hopefully understand all the things that lead to it and the things it impacts. From that point, the information gets passed to the lawmakers to figure out how to effectively use it to draft laws and regulations.

 

 

define "isn't effective" or perhaps are you asking how to make it more effective? if the latter, where specifically isn't it effective? is it because mentally ill people have guns, felons get guns, kids are getting guns?

How to make it more effective is a question of the law makers. The researchers should be answering how effective is it if it is effective at all? and in what way is it more or less effective? What are the factors that help or hurt it's effectiveness? These things require actual comparative study of the data, analysis, etc...It's not as simple as let's collect a few data points and then just publish it for others to use (there is that type of research as well but that isn't generally what we are talking about in this scenario).

 

 

fair question and perhaps one of the key ones. I will say we don't need a study on "guns" to perhaps get the answer as semi-auto guns and rifles have been around for years and that's not what has changed, so I'm sure you can see why the focus of everyone on guns is in question.

 

A casualty of the dicky amendment - we can't even study suicides performed with a gun without heavy restrictions at the moment because of the dickey amendment. remember it's a restriction on any research that might possibly advocate gun control - not a restriction on gun research.

 

 

I don't even see that as a correlation in school shootings so I'm not sure if you're referencing school shootings or shootings in general.

 

I mean is there an economic factor shared by all school shooters or even all mass shooters that by changing something in the marketplace might have incentivized their behavior to make different choices.

 

I'm not concerned with what the 1990's showed or what everyone's pitch was back then. I wouldn't say you're "always" anything with or without something. Too many variables involved to claim such certainties.

 

You should be, they still say the same thing today (but perhaps have toned it down). It's important to understand the history of these things. Jay Dickey who wrote the bill (and died last year) wrote an op-ed in 2012 in which he expressly stated that he regrets ever being the mouthpiece for the NRA in proposing this bill. The Bill cost him his seat in congress because his district was moderate.

 

 

I do think the shootings alone prove that without a force multiplier like a gun, you're odds of a direct confrontation with a shooter a classroom is going to yield you being killed. No studies needed for that. In the case of this Florida shooting and even the CT School shooting, the teachers who dove in front and took the initial rounds to save their kids would have likely had a better chance living and accomplishing a better outcome had they put a round down range at him and on-target vs using themselves as a human shield. YMMV on that though.

 

There is always something to learn from researching this, so "no studies needed for that" is not a credible answer. Research provides us with a new perspective, it allows us to look at the problem from different angles and to rule out things that seem like a factor but aren't.

 

 

again, you've made up your mind so it really seems you're the extremist in this exchange not me. I'm the one who is asking you the questions, thus I'm the one looking to engage. If I was being an extremist I would simply not give a shit what you have to say on the matter. Clearly, I'm interested.

 

Explain to me how this is not an extreme position. I'll wait.

In all honesty, the 2A is important to me and I won't trade it for the lives lost here or in the next shooting.

 

Honestly, this is the kind of attitude that needs to change. Nobody serious is talking about an outright repeal of 2A in any of these conversations, but hardliners like to extend any form of gun control as an infringement on 2A. This is a point I have heard you make many many times here.

 

 

More assumptions on your part. Must be a bad day at work?

 

You think the current proposals make sense? you think any of the last proposals for GC were rational? People want movement, and they are going to find someway to get it. The NRA has slowed it significantly but they couldn't stop the brady bill, or the assualt weapons ban, and if the midterms swing democrat they might not be able to stop what's coming next. Wouldn't it be nice to have what's coming next to be fact based and actually have a chance at addressing a problem?

 

I agree that emotions need removed. I'm not holding my stance on guns for emotional reasons at all. In fact, I would say quite the opposite. That said, I'm not one for "studies" where studies may not be needed. 2+2 is 4, I don't need a congressional study to determine that.

You say this, but all I hear is "I'm not for studies that disagree with my feelings about 2A".

 

If it shocked you then what does that say of your understanding of me? should you be putting words in my mouth and stating I'm an extremist or perhaps you should "engage" a bit more and put down your hard-line stance a bit?

You have to know some of the things you say are a bit "out there". I know I sound like a screaming liberal hippie sometimes, and I own it. Do you really think you are moderate with "Molon Labe" decals on your car?

 

Would I be asking you to clarify your stance and specifics around questions if I didn't want to hear the answers or gain clarity on them? Not sure why you try and personalize it with the use of my name and the word "afraid" as if to provoke something from me but whatever floats your boat. We already know each other man, you don't have to patronize me. Keep it real and perhaps less snarky and perhaps peeps will respond better to you overall. As you would say, don't stoop to that level.

 

You argue pretty hard against research when ever we have this conversation. I find people that argue against facts and data suspicious. Why do you hate research Tim? why don't you see it as a necessary part of this process?

[TTQ B4U]

You hit on a very interesting and intelligent point here Wags. Guns are a part of the problem, people are a part of the problem too. How much each contributes in aggregate is not really known because we can't even study people related to these mass attacks if a gun was involved because it might lead to gun control.

 

here's where studies don't matter. in both this and the below, you're looking for some type of answer from a study when all we as society have to do is make a fucking call / decision to correlates to the result we want to see. I don't need to know to what degree crazy or sick someone is to determine if they should be able to buy a gun.

We can't even drive change in the mental health area because we don't have the research because it can't be studied because it might be used to write gun control.

 

again, what specifically are you looking for or to solve?

 

What if a lot of these incidents are all linked to the same or similar medication used to treat mental illness? we can't even find out because we can't pay for independent research to be done in this area because it may be used to write a gun control law as well.

 

we don't need a study to be commission to find out what 10 shooters were taking in terms of medications. The NRA isn't standing in the way of an autopsy and drug work up on people.

[TTQ B4U]

I'm sorry, did someone else write this under you account:

 

So you consider my views on the value of our Amendments extreme? So if I call for the removal of the 4th amendment and others here say absolutely not are they being extreme? These are our rights man, not something I or many take lightly. Note how I stated Severe Infringment too.....I never said guns couldn't be regulated....hell they already are. Thus I don't consider my view extreme at all.

 

Tim, I am not sure if you understand how actual scientific research works in this setting. There is a general outline, but they don't go in saying "we are going to prove X", they go in saying we are going to study this factor and hopefully understand all the things that lead to it and the things it impacts. From that point, the information gets passed to the lawmakers to figure out how to effectively use it to draft laws and regulations.

I understand it Kerry, I just don't agree with the approach. That bullshit approach is complicated and allows for too much other politicking on both sides to take place. Make a fucking decision on what we want and make it happen.

 

We don't need a "study" on who is coming into our country or how they are getting here to say keep illegal aliens the fuck out as they are costing us money. Keep it direct and simple and get shit done. If not, enjoy the complicated world of BS and getting nothing done while spending a lot to do it.

 

How to make it more effective is a question of the law makers. The researchers should be answering how effective is it if it is effective at all? and in what way is it more or less effective? What are the factors that help or hurt it's effectiveness? These things require actual comparative study of the data, analysis, etc...It's not as simple as let's collect a few data points and then just publish it for others to use (there is that type of research as well but that isn't generally what we are talking about in this scenario).

You're out to boil the ocean when all someone wants is a cup of hot tea. Stop complicating things like lawyers do. Again, if you want to get shit done, you need to target the solution not study the world.

 

If you want to keep 18yr olds crazy fucks from getting guns you only need to know how they are getting the guns. We know that in everyone of these cases. Most bought them legally. No study needed and the legality of what we have on the books......hasn't proven effective because 1. age isn't really a factor. An 18yr loon shooting up a school is as dangerous as a 56yr religious freak shooting up a clinic. Again, no study needed.

 

How crazy they are or what specific drugs they were on isn't needed to put a law on the books. End-game has to do with HIPPA and what data is actually being shared from agency to agency. Start there, save the money and connect the dots and begin putting measures in place. We don't need to study and work towards perfection only to miss out on simply achieving progress or success. All that bullshit is why things here take so long to make simple changes and begin showing measurable impact.

 

A casualty of the dicky amendment - we can't even study suicides performed with a gun without heavy restrictions at the moment because of the dickey amendment. remember it's a restriction on any research that might possibly advocate gun control - not a restriction on gun research.

Who give a fuck. Suicide is more of a mental health issue. No study is needed to know that a gun in the bed stand of someone depressed might lead to them likely blowing their head off. Lots of people hang themselves but no one is studying the rope used to do it or if it's from a balcony or a closet rod. End game, keep guns out of hands of depression victims. Go from there....

 

I mean is there an economic factor shared by all school shooters or even all mass shooters that by changing something in the marketplace might have incentivized their behavior to make different choices.

I see no correlation at all. Most of these people are angry or crazy. Not sure I follow if it even matters what their financial situation or the market is showing. Perhaps I'm missing your point.

 

You should be, they still say the same thing today (but perhaps have toned it down). It's important to understand the history of these things. Jay Dickey who wrote the bill (and died last year) wrote an op-ed in 2012 in which he expressly stated that he regrets ever being the mouthpiece for the NRA in proposing this bill. The Bill cost him his seat in congress because his district was moderate.

can't speak to it as again, I don't worry too much about these studies as they are over-rated IMO and I see nothing from our gov' but bills and budgets full of pages of nothing anyone reads anyway. Keep the shit simple, effective and efficient. Complicated is not the answer. To you it may sound good but the effectiveness is what matters and we have decades of complicated not being effective at much of anything. time to fix that.

 

There is always something to learn from researching this, so "no studies needed for that" is not a credible answer. Research provides us with a new perspective, it allows us to look at the problem from different angles and to rule out things that seem like a factor but aren't.

results matter. let's work to get them quickly vs continuing the madness of arguing and debating.

Explain to me how this is not an extreme position. I'll wait.

If you feel the amendments are meaningless and not the core-sacred values our country was founded on and in need of protecting then I don't expect you to understand my point. You will instead see them as extremist views as you do and accuse those of us looking to preserve our amendments. I don't consider my point extreme because 1. our constitution is not a living document and the issues around the 2A are more around the people not the guns or our gun rights. Fix the problem, don't fuck up our foundation. There are indeed people talking about repealing the 2A. You just choose to ignore it and them.

 

You think the current proposals make sense? you think any of the last proposals for GC were rational? People want movement, and they are going to find someway to get it. The NRA has slowed it significantly but they couldn't stop the brady bill, or the assualt weapons ban, and if the midterms swing democrat they might not be able to stop what's coming next. Wouldn't it be nice to have what's coming next to be fact based and actually have a chance at addressing a problem?

I don't because the approach being taken is either extreme towards more chipping away out our rights and / or it's filled with complicated bullshit.

 

You say this, but all I hear is "I'm not for studies that disagree with my feelings about 2A".

then you need to listen better and talk less.

 

You have to know some of the things you say are a bit "out there". I know I sound like a screaming liberal hippie sometimes, and I own it. Do you really think you are moderate with "Molon Labe" decals on your car?

yes, I am a moderate. Even a moderate will die for what he believes in. My brother did in a war and I would in a revolution but so have and would many moderates. Maybe you would not, but then I'm not surprised as you're willing to negotiate on our amendments and rights. I don't consider believing in our constitution an extremist view.

 

You argue pretty hard against research when ever we have this conversation. I find people that argue against facts and data suspicious. Why do you hate research Tim? why don't you see it as a necessary part of this process?

 

I argue against complicated BS not facts. We don't need to solve for Pi just fix a few fucking minor issues and inject some basic common sense. If that doesn't work tweak things a bit more, and keep going. Not everything in life is complicated nor requires complex solutions.

Edited February 28, 2018 by TTQ B4U

[xlr8tn]

I need to find a new sporting goods store. My boy needs a ton of shit for baseball. Now that dicks is off the table I need a new place.

[Brandon]

I am not asking for the numbers killed in mass shootings, I am asking for someone to study the data on the shooter's lives, the market place, the current system, to cross compare all of it, do root cause analysis, look at commonalities, and really investigate in an impartial way.

 

Collection of Data is only one part and honestly it's the easiest part. The hard part is finding dedicated researchers in this field to analyze the data, compare it to other data points, really investigate it in depth, and draw intelligent conclusions. That costs a lot of money. The federal government is the largest driver of independent research in this country, and it has a very rigid set of standards to insure independence and impartiality. To deny this issue access to that resource is to essentially to ignore any hope of truth in this area.

 

They have done some correlation, and fundamentally these mass shooters are from broken families lacking a core farther figure. No joke. Having authoritative , affirmative and loving parents is hugely important; much more so then is maybe understood.

 

Then pushing the "science" thing. Science is important, but its whole goal is to disprove itself. Time and again. I am not trying to be a flat earther or science denier, just playing devils advocate for the argumentative pitch out "science".