prev <-> next
[2018-02-22 16:44:41] - without outright banning more dangerous firearms*
[2018-02-22 16:43:58] - Paul: Currently community service has nothing to do with gun ownership. It was an idea that I thought seemed outside the box and not one I had heard before about a way to try and have a way to both restrict gun ownership without making it impossible and perhaps reduce the rate of violence as hopefully community service would increase one's connection with said community. -Daniel
[2018-02-22 16:25:12] - i mean the *correct* and probably really mean answer, is it would be safest to give the crazy dangerous guns to the 10% of the people with the most money, or the 10% of the people in the nicest neighborhoods or the 10% of the people with the most Y chromosomes or something like that. but that's a really bad answer for other reasons - aaron
[2018-02-22 16:24:20] - aaron: Sorry, I have to go, but I'll try to jump on tomorrow. -Paul
[2018-02-22 16:22:54] - aaron: "nutritional issues over the course of decades are legislated another way" Forget about the soda then. You're obsessed with the soda.
Again, you can compare it to immigrant terrorists if you're looking for something/someone who can immediately murder people. -Paul[2018-02-22 16:22:31] - paul: i guess really the question is, "which 10% of people would be least likely to abuse their guns" and aside from excluding people with criminal records or mental health issues, it could make sense to reward people who give back to their community - aaron
[2018-02-22 16:20:33] - paul: i think that's a better question. and i guess the answer is, according to daniel stuff like shotguns and hunting rifles are off the table, we're not talking about that. but if there's X people who own weirdly destructive weapons and we want to cut that number down to X/10 people, what's the best way to do it? and the most obvious way is stuff like background checks but another creative way is the community service thing - aaron
[2018-02-22 16:17:58] - aaron: The "this law might not directly help but might change gun culture" thing is a little less illogical to me, although I still think it's too vague of a reason to pass a law. It's not like prohibition changed our drinking culture (whoops, just can't avoid analogies). -Paul
[2018-02-22 16:16:48] - paul: but it sounds like you're saying the logic's flawed because it's absurd to legislate everything that kills people the same way. isn't it logically sound to say, "these things that people can use to murder other people are legislated one way, and these things people can kind of i guess use to give themselves nutritional issues over the course of decades are legislated another way?" - aaron
[2018-02-22 16:16:10] - aaron: I can ditch the analogy and just go back to my question of what does community service had to do with the right to own a specific type of gun at all? -Paul
[2018-02-22 16:16:01] - I'm not even sure any reasonable discussion is possible at this point. - mig
[2018-02-22 16:15:41] - daniel: I've been looking at clips from the CNN town hall last night, and I'm not sure I've been more dismayed at the deterioration of any sort of political discourse. "You're a murderer!", "Senator Rubio, it’s hard to look at you and not look down the barrel on an AR-15 and not look at Nikolas Cruz", "In the name of 17 people, you can't deny (NRA) funds". Numerous references to NRA "blood money". Forget about even reaching compromise...
[2018-02-22 16:13:03] - aaron: It's less about how I think all things that can kill people should be legislated the same way and more about: "I think the logic we're using in discussing these gun laws are flawed and I am trying to illustrate how by using an analogy, which is my favorite way of debating". -Paul
[2018-02-22 16:12:00] - aaron: "coming up with 5 bad analogies and complaining someone's being too picky is like a 5-year old who asks to eat cake and cookies and ice cream for dinner and then complains you won't let them eat anything" I can't tell if you're trolling me about my bad analogies with your own analogies or not.
-Paul[2018-02-22 15:50:05] - paul: it's that fundamentally, sort of technically killing yourself by neglecting your nutrition over time is different from murdering someone with a gun and... yeah i'd expect courts to categorize those two things differently - aaron
[2018-02-22 15:48:21] - paul: but unless i'm misunderstanding your point, i'm not really picking on your analogies specifically -- the core of your point sounds like it's, "all these things which can kill people should be legislated in the same way" and you're equating things like iranian people and guns and cars and that's what's not making sense to me. it's not about just like, "oh you technically picked a weird target for your analogy" - aaron
[2018-02-22 15:46:42] - paul: i think fireworks are a pretty spot-on analogy because they're used for entertainment but they're also basically a repurposed weapon - aaron
[2018-02-22 15:44:24] - paul: coming up with 5 bad analogies and complaining someone's being too picky is like a 5-year old who asks to eat cake and cookies and ice cream for dinner and then complains you won't let them eat anything
- aaron[2018-02-22 14:59:47] - aDaniel: There are background checks and waiting periods and rules around keeping guns unloaded or locked or transporting them across state lines. Guns are incredibly regulated right now, without any further laws. -Paul
[2018-02-22 14:58:31] - aDaniel: Right, but again you all seem to implying that right now it's the wild west and there are no lines drawn anywhere. Quite the opposite. We have a lot of rules around guns. Automatic weapons are banned. Gun permits can be incredibly hard to get depending on where you live (and until recently all but impossible in some places). -Paul
[2018-02-22 14:43:22] - you wanna draw a line somewhere or nowhere. and somewhere (assuming a culture can agree on a place to draw the line) is almost always better than nowhere. ~a
[2018-02-22 14:43:02] - Paul: Like I get you want to be able to draw a direct line between a gun control idea and stopping a shooter but if thats always going to be complex and multi faceted why can't we try to see if we can change things for the better? -Daniel
[2018-02-22 14:42:32] - Paul: I don't know for sure that our ideas would definitely fix things but I think they might. Other countries have been able to successfully enact gun controls and effect change. Our country has its unique aspects but I think there is value to trying. Otherwise we just sit here and wait for the next shooting without doing anything? -Daniel
[2018-02-22 14:42:04] - paul: "where some seemingly random line is drawn" as a general rule, i'm always fine with this. ~a
[2018-02-22 14:40:33] - Paul: I think you seem to be hung up on some various concepts that basically render all gun control moot. Like if we can't buy 9+ magazines because 8 is close to 9 then how do you draw a line anywhere? If the Supreme Court invalidated a hand gun ban then we have to come up with some alternative but since handguns account for so much gun violence you seem to want to just shrug and give up. -Daniel
[2018-02-22 14:26:25] - a: Or things like "high capacity magazines" where some seemingly random line is drawn where 8 bullets in a magazine is perfectly fine but 9 or more is right out. -Paul
[2018-02-22 14:25:48] - a: "how much damage they do" They problem is that can be pretty arbitrary too. Bigger caliber = more damage? Or do we care about accuracy? Or rounds fired per minute? Or concealability? Because frankly, a lot of our previous gun laws don't even address most of those things and instead focus on cosmetic stuff. -Paul
[2018-02-22 14:24:09] - aaron: It can't be proven that this would prevent anything, but we need to do something to change the item culture in this country. -Paul
[2018-02-22 14:23:57] - aaron: How about if I don't even use an analogy and instead just boil down the argument as I see it: Because something like 0.1% of an item is used to kill people, we need to restrict people's access to some arbitrary group of those items unless they do community service. -Paul
[2018-02-22 14:21:31] - aaron: The problem is, every time I use an analogy, I'm given some reason why it isn't exactly the same, so I try another analogy that is the same in that fashion, and then I'm told (sometimes by somebody else) that's it's not the same in some other way. It's like playing analogy whack-a-mole. -Paul
[2018-02-22 14:20:40] - aaron: Well, soda wasn't my first choice. I tried using terrorist attacks and automobiles (both of which definitely kill people), so that seems like you're being a little overly selective.
-Paul[2018-02-22 09:57:34] - paul: i mean it sounds like your argument boils down to, "why is it everyone makes a fuss if someone gets knifed in the back, but if i accidentally cut myself while cooking they look the other way?" and in a way it's sort of compelling but in a more accurate way i have no idea what you're trying to say - aaron
[2018-02-22 09:53:31] - paul: if people enjoyed guns by going home and playing with their gun alone, and sometimes they accidentally shot themself -- then i don't think people would be outraged and guns wouldn't be facing this kind of legislation. it's weird that you're attempting to trivialize the difference between shooting another person with a gun and self-inflicted type 2 diabetes from drinking soda - aaron
[2018-02-22 09:51:24] - paul: "how about alcohol as an analogy"; that only applies to the extent that alcohol acts as a harm to others, such as in drunk driving scenarios. and we do see a lot of legislation to prevent drunk driving scenarios; revoking licenses, holding bartenders accountable, etc - aaron
[2018-02-21 16:35:25] - paul: yeah, i follow you. i'm not sure, but i think daniel would have restrictions in the order of how much damage they do. not in some random order. ~a
[2018-02-21 16:33:54] - I gotta jump off the conversation for now, but would be happy to debate this tomorrow or later. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:32:58] - a: Also, an 18-wheeler is significantly different from a Honda Civic both in terms of being able to drive it safely and the damage it can cause. I don't know if the same is true of a revolver and a semi-automatic handgun. (I honestly don't know, I've fired a semi-automatic handgun, but don't think I've fired a revolver). -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:32:36] - depends on the gun and depends on the vehicle. ~a
[2018-02-21 16:31:36] - a: I don't know if I understand what you're saying. We're talking about taking things that are currently allowed and restricting them. Not opening up banned/regulated things to more people. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:30:17] - a: My guess is that outside of the costs, it's easier on average across the country to buy a car than it is to buy a gun. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:29:55] - paul: "what regular citizen really needs an 18-wheeler without a special license?" "what regular citizen really needs non-dot approved wheels? (yes this is a thing)" yes, we can make these analogies. ~a
[2018-02-21 16:29:41] - a: Or heck, until fairly recently, try buying a gun at all in places like DC. It was apparently all but impossible unless you were politically connected. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:28:45] - a: Yes, and we have laws for guns. Lots of laws actually. Try buying a machine gun or a high capacity magazine. There is this myth that guns are unregulated. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:28:07] - aDaniel: And we can make gun/car analogies in that people can say "Who really needs such a big car or a car that can go so fast?" just like people ask why anybody needs a semi-automatic gun. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:27:44] - paul: yes, but we already have these laws for cars
try to drive around an 18-wheeler some time. you won't need to do any community service, but you will have to jump through some more onerous hoops. ~a[2018-02-21 16:27:21] - aDaniel: But if I had to guess, I would say such a rule would probably only prevent some tiny fraction of automobile deaths and the community service aspect just seems like a bizarre payment for the right to drive a bigger car. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:26:20] - aDaniel: Because to me, that's as close as I can make the car analogy to what I'm hearing about Daniel's gun proposal. It works in some ways, in that maybe a smaller and crappier car is less likely to speed and crash or has less mass so it'll kill fewer people if used to ram a crowd... -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:25:31] - i'm having a hard time thinking of how alcohol and guns are different. there are differences, but they're smaller differences than the others. ~a
[2018-02-21 16:25:01] - aDaniel: Ok, great, let's use cars then. I propose a law which says anybody can buy a compact coup, but in order to buy a four door sedan or anything larger or fancier, you need to do 40 hours of community service. Does that law make sense? -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:23:31] - daniel/paul: unlike soda and immigrants, at least cars and alcohol have similar attributes: all three harm yourself and all three harm others. all three are used for fun, and alcohol and guns are both used only for fun. ~a
[2018-02-21 16:21:56] - earn your way to drive a car rather, not use. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 16:21:36] - Paul: Cars seems to favor my way since you have to earn your way to be able to use a car. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 16:21:12] - Paul: I don't think guns = sodas because you can't easily kill yourself and others with sodas. So yes I think restrictions on guns make more sense than restrictions on sodas. If you think that limiting most people to revolvers / shotguns / bolt actions wouldn't have an effect on gun violence then that at least is a different line of logic that I can follow. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 16:18:37] - Daniel: Or, we can use cars, since soda doesn't often kill other people. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:17:39] - Daniel: We can make it community service to make it as apples to apples as possible. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:17:19] - Daniel: So I am using that same logic on other things. You can pick whatever. I chose soda most recently. By that same logic we let everybody still drink soda, but if they want some different soda (I guess it should be potentially more potent, so either a larger size or something like Mountain Dew) they have to do something they don't want to that is unrelated. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:15:56] - Daniel: Anyway, we can debate that point if you want, but I will move on.... -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:15:44] - Daniel: And by that, I'm talking about how handguns are responsible for most gun deaths and revolvers are (as I understand it) pretty similar in efficiency to handguns unless you have to reload. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:14:58] - Daniel: That because some people die as a result of some object/thing/person (in this case, guns), that we need to put some seemingly unrelated restrictions (community service) on people if they want to get different types of guns, even if the guns that are allowed to everybody regardless of restriction are probably about as deadly in most shootings. -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:11:47] - Daniel: I'm trying to take the logic you are using and applying it to other items. It's not terribly important what those items are (hence why I keep switching from immigrants to soda to whatever). If I understand you correctly (and maybe I am not, so please correct me if I am wrong) you are saying... -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:10:36] - Paul: And the immigration analogy was that guns kill people and immigrants kill people so if we want restrictions on guns we should want restrictions on immigration except that when I looked immigrants don't really kill people so I don't get your analogy then either. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 16:09:01] - Paul: I don't totally get the analogy. You are saying that putting restrictions on guns is like putting restrictions on sodas so if we want restrictions on guns we should want restrictions on sodas. However I don't get why guns are like sodas. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 16:05:28] - 't get it? Or don't agree? -Paul
[2018-02-21 16:05:21] - Daniel: You don
[2018-02-21 16:02:29] - Paul: I don't get the analogies either. Sorry. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 15:49:17] - Then doesn't it follow that my soda ban for anybody not contributing to charity law is also good, if simply on a smaller scale? -Paul
[2018-02-21 15:48:47] - Yes, I admit that guns (particularly in America) are unique in some ways in that they are not as utilitarian as cars and yet are involved in lots more deaths than most sole "entertainment" things. But bigger numbers doesn't make logic more sound. If throwing arbitrary barriers in front of people to buy certain types of guns is good... -Paul
[2018-02-21 15:46:25] - aaron: How about alcohol as an analogy? The problem is, there's always going to be a "but this is different" gotcha. There isn't going to be an exact analogy. Either the number of deaths aren't similar or something else is more essential or something that can't be changed... -Paul
[2018-02-21 15:42:36] - a: "banning iranian immigrants would not prevent deaths on nearly the same scale" Maybe, but don't forget we're talking about mass shootings here, which don't actually kill too many people each year. Regardless, I could switch ethnicity to make the numbers closer if it matters. Again, the point isn't to compare scale but veracity of argument. -Paul
[2018-02-21 15:40:57] - aaron: "some time around 2030 when automated vehicles become the norm there will be a push to restrict or ban manually operated vehicles" Definitely agree, but I think those arguments will be a lot more persuasive. I think it will be a lot easier both in terms of persuasion and law enforcement to get rid of manually driven cars. -Paul
[2018-02-21 15:11:37] - paul: "http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0303/gunsfortots.html guns for tots! -paul" heh. nice sub-title for today. interesting that lp removed that page from their website. web archive from 2005 ~a
[2018-02-21 14:34:18] - i'm totally going to copy your idea. ~a
[2018-02-21 14:18:05] - if i'm ever president -- maybe not president of america, but of a crappy country where i don't care if i ruin it... if i'm ever president of a crappy country i might try it. nobody copy my idea - aaron
[2018-02-21 14:16:58] - and then step 4 is like -- if i try to donate my AR-15 with the government buyback program, i'll probably only get $150 because i'm not a very good shot. so there becomes a secondary market where people who are really, really good at gun obstacle courses buy everyone else's weapons to resell them - aaron
[2018-02-21 14:15:02] - a: they send you into a building with a bunch of little fake target dummies. and for every dummy you can fatally wound in the 2-minute time limit, you get $10. but this wouldn't be perfect either because you only get one chance to do it, and maybe you don't know the layout of the obstacle course. so step 3 is: the government ALSO has like, just public gun obstacle courses to practice on - aaron
[2018-02-21 14:13:29] - a: i had a weird line of thought on my way into work today which started thinking about government buyback programs for automated weapons. but they're flawed, because people just give shitty guns that don't work or which couldn't kill a lot of people anyway. so maybe.... the government can improve their buyback program with a gun obstacle course, and before they buy your gun... - aaron
[2018-02-21 14:10:34] - aaron: that last one was for paul. i like follow your point though. ~a
[2018-02-21 14:09:43] - a: if there were like 4 incidents in a 2-year span which involved people making homemade bombs which were activated with arduino kits, i think people might say, "maybe we stores shouldn't sell arduino kits" or "maybe we need background checks on arduino kits" or "maybe arduino kits need to use a protocol which is incompatible with bomb stuff" and i think those would be good arguments. and i'm really pro-arduino kit - aaron
[2018-02-21 14:08:35] - paul: i would say a better analogy would be something that people use voluntarily for entertainment purposes, but which can also be abused to cause panic or harm. i think a better analogy is banning fireworks, or banning arduino kits. i think those are better analogies, but i think they'd also result in similar arguments and i think the arguments are OK - aaron
[2018-02-21 14:06:42] - paul: i think there's an analogy out there but i don't think you've found it yet. banning AR-15s isn't like banning cars and it's not like banning iranians for obvious reasons. an iranian person who wants to work in the suburbs under a green card can't "not be iranian" and he can't "not commute" - aaron
[2018-02-21 14:05:26] - paul: wow i screwed up one of those sentences, but i think you follow. ~a
[2018-02-21 14:05:00] - paul: yes, i follow that part. i think the deaths due to banning sales of handguns would help prevent gun deaths. banning iranian immigrants would not prevent deaths on nearly the same scale. ~a
[2018-02-21 14:03:41] - paul: "We don't fret about our automobile culture when talking about automobile deaths." this is coming; some time around 2030 when automated vehicles become the norm there will be a push to restrict or ban manually operated vehicles, and the arguments will be very similar to 2nd amendment arguments people are applying today - aaron
[2018-02-21 14:03:35] - a: And I agree that the travel ban is dumb for those reasons. I think a lot of these gun proposals are dumb for the same reasons. -Paul
[2018-02-21 14:03:05] - a: I'm using this analogy because Trump's travel ban is fresh in my mind and I am assuming you and Daniel oppose it. People mock the ban because it doesn't cover some of the countries were most of the foreign born terrorists have come from AND because it smears immigrants from those countries as potential terrorists. -Paul
[2018-02-21 14:02:03] - a: Both are targeting the wrong thing (most gun deaths happen from other weapons, I am guessing most terrorists are not Iranian or even necessarily immigrants) and even if they WERE targeting the right thing, they're too broad in that it's hurting thousands (millions?) of people for the crimes of a tiny percentage. -Paul
[2018-02-21 14:00:32] - a: I am saying that a proposal to (let's just grab one of the popular ones right now) ban sales of AR-15 guns in order to help prevent gun deaths is similar to me to a ban on Iranian immigrants to prevent terrorist attacks. -Paul
[2018-02-21 13:59:16] - a: I guess I haven't been pounding this analogy home as much as I thought.
-Paul[2018-02-21 13:54:53] - paul: i don't follow. are you equating deaths from immigrants and deaths from firearms? ~a
[2018-02-21 13:49:22] - Daniel: Or brainstorm ways to get people to fly less after 9-11 or worry about our immigrant culture (or if we do, it seems to get rightly mocked as ineffective and wrong). -Paul
[2018-02-21 13:46:27] - Daniel: "Its hard to hurt others with soda?" Okay, we can make an analogy with cars if you want. I was trying to look at things at a higher level. For whatever reason, our discussion around guns is different than anything else in this country. We don't fret about our "automobile" culture when talking about automobile deaths. -Paul
[2018-02-21 12:59:41] - daniel: "2nd amendment". if the school shootings increase in rate, maybe we could get a new constitutional amendment. ~a
[2018-02-21 12:17:07] - Paul: Its hard to hurt others with soda? You don't think the number of legally owned AR-15's / handguns / etc would go down if there were more restrictions on them? I guess I do. I think the theory is to make people put in work/effort in order to earn the 'more dangerous' guns and community service was an initial idea that seems to have a positive side effect on society. If you have some other idea that you think would be better? -Daniel
[2018-02-21 11:44:12] - Daniel: In my mind, that seems like a silly law since the two actions have seemingly nothing to do with each other and I'm not sure if putting unrelated roadblocks in front of people to get a larger sugary beverage is going to do much to improve obesity. Do you agree? -Paul
[2018-02-21 11:42:36] - Daniel: Since my previous analogy seems to be gaining no traction, how about this? Obesity is a problem. Sugary drinks might contribute to it. How about a law where anybody can buy a can of soda, but in order to buy a 2 liter bottle, you have to... I dunno, go to church. Or donate to a charity. -Paul
[2018-02-21 11:41:03] - Daniel: Maybe it's because I'm a small government nutjob, but I tend to think that if we're going to pass a law that costs money to implement and will involve throwing people in jail if they defy it... we should have some sort of sense of how it will make our lives better or fix a problem... -Paul
[2018-02-21 11:28:19] - Daniel: Um... I still don't really see how it is anything other than wishful thinking or a desire to do something rather than anything that will make a meaningful difference. I don't understand the purpose of the community service. Is the point that gun owners aren't likely to do it? -Paul
[2018-02-21 11:19:50] - Does that make the idea less poop? -Daniel
[2018-02-21 11:18:14] - Daniel: Ah, okay. The whitelist is for weapons. Not for people. Guess that makes sense since having a whitelist for people sounds racist.
-Paul[2018-02-21 11:15:20] - Paul: Yeah the whitelist is for everyone - I think whats on the whitelist could be debated but my initial idea is revolver / shotgun / bolt action rifles and anything else would need to be earned. But you could substitute earned with some licensing structure or restriction and it would be similar enough probably for me. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 11:07:41] - Daniel: Maybe I misunderstood. So anybody can own a revolver or shotgun, but a handgun can only be earned with community service? -Paul
[2018-02-21 11:07:14] - a: "gun ownership isn't a religion" Okay, would it help if we switched from a religion to.... wearing a turban? Or maybe a hijab? The point is drawing a connection that is tenuous at best. -Paul
[2018-02-21 11:00:32] - Daniel: No, the idea isn't poop, I just want to poop on it. Big difference.
-Paul[2018-02-21 10:19:54] - It seemed a reasonable idea to me but Paul seems to think its poop. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 10:19:24] - a: I don't know if a straight license for a gun would work since of the 2nd amendment which is why I was trying to compromise with that by allowing some small subset to everyone and then having some restrictions on guns with magazines / faster shooting / increased range etc. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 10:01:12] - wooo, compounding effects! ~a
[2018-02-21 10:00:52] - paul: "C" is a bit of a stretch. gun ownership isn't a religion. to analogize even further, car ownership is not a religion, and when we tax gas, or require a drivers license to drive a car, it's not offensive to the car-owner religion. wait, have we discussed having a gun license? maybe at the state level?! obviously the deterrence would only be marginally felt, but it only needs to be marginally felt to have compounding effects. ~a
[2018-02-21 10:00:05] - woo double post! -Daniel
[2018-02-21 09:59:57] - Paul: You are still allowed a firearm no matter what. You just aren't allowed ANY firearm. I think the goal is to limit the amount of more dangerous weapons legally available to the public and make it more of a process in order to get those weapons without removing your 2nd amendment rights by still allowing everyone access to some firearms. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 09:59:57] - Paul: You are still allowed a firearm no matter what. You just aren't allowed ANY firearm. I think the goal is to limit the amount of more dangerous weapons legally available to the public and make it more of a process in order to get those weapons without removing your 2nd amendment rights by still allowing everyone access to some firearms. -Daniel
[2018-02-21 09:52:25] - Daniel: And that's not even getting into stuff about how the right to bear arms is a "right" in our country. Should we require community service for the right to free speech?
-Paul[2018-02-21 09:50:48] - Daniel: Again (because I'm obsessed with this analogy), I would compare this to some sort of travel ban which banned people of a certain religion from entering the country. (A) It probably wouldn't work since people could lie about their religion (B) It would be silly since no single religion has a monopoly on terrorist attacks and (C) It would be offensive to people of that religion. -Paul
[2018-02-21 09:49:05] - Daniel: *Shrug* I don't mean to poop on your idea, but I guess I just don't quite see the point. It seems like more of a symbolic thing than anything else. I mean, what is your end goal? Is it to decrease gun deaths? If so, I don't see how this would meaningfully impact it since most gun deaths could probably be done just as easily with a revolver/shotgun/etc. -Paul
[2018-02-20 23:33:13] - a: we can go with the fbi definition of a mass shooting that happens at a school, I suppose. It's the image that's usual evoked when one throws around that "18 school shootings" figure. - mig
[2018-02-20 20:43:47] - mig: yah. so you don't like "any time a firearm discharges a live round inside a school building or on a school campus or grounds". that's fair. what definition would you prefer for a "school shooting"? ~a
[2018-02-20 17:08:39] - a: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/no-there-havent-been-18-school-shooting-in-2018-that-number-is-flat-wrong/2018/02/15/65b6cf72-1264-11e8-8ea1-c1d91fcec3fe_s - mig
[2018-02-20 17:04:54] - a: So in theory it wouldn't be a list of gun owners. It would be a list of who had earned the right to have bigger guns. But an interesting counter point. -Daniel
[2018-02-20 17:04:00] - daniel: they don't even want a list. there'd be no way for a list-less system to allow community service points to transfer to gun ownership. i guarantee you it would not pass in the united states until we have way more school shootings. until like maybe 3 per week. well we're at 3 per week for 2018 already, so i guess i mean averaging 3 per week on a longer time-frame. ~a
[2018-02-20 16:59:52] - I thought this was at least a novel (to me) idea for gun control so thought I would share. It seems to not just ban all guns but would limit what people were allowed to get to hopefully reduce the number of legal 'more dangerous' guns. It would require more oversight and regulation and some way to track stuff so not 100% on it but still a novel idea for me. -Daniel
[2018-02-20 16:58:22] - So like 10 or 15 (or some number TBD) hours for a few months would earn right to bigger guns. Up to like two years where then you could get whatever. -Daniel
[2018-02-20 16:57:43] - So I know we moved on and don't want to restart the whole thing but a coworker and I discussing things came up with the combo idea of a base whitelist of allowed firearms (I proposed the shotgun / revolver / bolt action but could be debated changed) that everyone could with current restrictions (background checks / age / etc) but anything not on the white list would have to be earned via hours of community service. -Daniel
[2018-02-20 11:14:01] - maybe because i was googling for it on friday. ~a
[2018-02-20 11:07:45] - paul: i just saw an advertisement for appian. ~a
[2018-02-20 10:49:32] - mig: "doubling the standard deduction will definitely be simpler for some" how? increasing the standard deduction only allows you to report less information, it doesn't make doing your taxes any simpler. i never quite understood the purpose behind standard deduction. it seems like such a hacky solution. ~a
[2018-02-20 10:42:08] - a: What happened? Concentrated benefits and diffuse costs. The people who get those tax breaks really like them and fight hard for them whereas everybody else is penalized so little for them that they don't care nearly as much. -Paul
[2018-02-20 10:40:58] - a: sure, the "simplicity" thing was way oversold. I don't think it's nonexistent though. Doubling the standard deduction will definitely be simpler for some, just have no idea how many folks that would be. - mig
[2018-02-19 14:42:34] - paul: (since you often rail on complex taxes) what happened to the postcard tax system? even in early december, they were promoting the postcard heavily, but then in late december, it seemed to disappear completely. now it sounds like 2018 taxes will be as complex as ever. "it leaves nearly every large tax break in place. it creates as many new preferences for special interests as it gets rid of." (the failing nytimes) thoughts on this? ~a
[2018-02-16 13:56:37] - sorry, "bike-lane" is also a store if that wasn't clear. ~a
[2018-02-16 13:56:08] - paul: yesssss. ~a
[2018-02-16 13:55:58] - a: I sense some sarcasm.
-Paul[2018-02-16 13:55:58] - no. i've been in that bike-lane in that building though. ~a
[2018-02-16 13:55:09] - bpm? sounds like fun.
~a[2018-02-16 13:48:28] - Anybody here have any experience with Appian? Apparently they're a software development company based in Reston. -Paul
[2018-02-16 13:29:36] - a: Go go Twitter and Mazor! I'm a little shocked Twitter is up almost 40% already. Also, I already regret a few of my picks and wish I had picked some others. Oh well. The important thing is even though I haven't picked NFLX or NVDA, I have both in my portfolio... -Paul
[2018-02-16 13:27:37] - paul: we're tied again! ~a
[2018-02-16 13:27:12] - mig/paul: that's all fair. honestly, i don't even have much of a counterargument. though i kinda forget my overall point. i guess whether we should or should not change the laws as they are today? or maybe whether they . . . will change? ~a
[2018-02-16 13:21:54] - a: Setting the NRA issue aside, my larger point was that gun control laws don't seem to be increasing (in fact, they might be decreasing), which doesn't exactly point to overwhelming public support. -Paul
[2018-02-16 13:19:56] - a: "do you have a way of measuring that?" Yes, for mine at least. I have seen multiple posts in favor of more gun control laws and none against. 100% seems high relative to the rest of the country.
-Paul[2018-02-16 12:37:48] - a: "do you have a way of measuring that", more inputs are required obviously, but this might be a start. - mig
[2018-02-16 12:32:57] - a: I think his point is that he's pointing out easing of gun laws hasn't come from the legislature but from voter referendums? - mig
[2018-02-16 11:51:45] - "over time most states have eased their gun control laws" he's arguing that the nra has no affect on statewide gun laws? that's weird. i thought they put out millions (literally) in campaign donations. ~a
[2018-02-16 11:48:44] - paul: "gun control isn't quite as popular as some of our social media feeds might make it out to be" do you have a way of measuring that? because i think gun control is much more popular than my social media feed might make it out to be
~a[2018-02-16 11:18:15] - And that strikes me as an absolutely horrible idea.
-Paul[2018-02-16 11:18:01] - I think I need to take a short break on this. Taking up too much time.
I found myself almost responding to somebody on twitter who said, "We are raising a generation of kids who, unlike their parents, have reason to believe they could be shot and killed at school on any given day." -Paul[2018-02-16 11:06:46] - a: https://twitter.com/ATabarrok/status/964199662004723712 I saw this on twitter, and it's a little hard to follow, but apparently over time most states have eased their gun control laws. -Paul
[2018-02-16 11:02:27] - a: and when it is asked (support for gun control rises in the wake of mass shootings generally and fall off later). Regardless, I think we're arguing over unimportant semantics. I don't really care if the slight majority is for or against, I was just pointing out that gun control isn't quite as popular as some of our social media feeds might make it out to be. -Paul
[2018-02-16 11:01:10] - a: "a majority of us want stricter gun control" I would say this is much more misleading (if not outright wrong) than anything I said. Yes, some polls show a majority want stricter gun control, but others place it more 50/50. A lot depends on the specific question asked (specific measures often have more support)... -Paul
[2018-02-16 10:47:50] - paul: i'm more curious how 2019 and 2020 show up though. will your tune change if that 60% reaches 78% again? ~a
[2018-02-16 10:46:08] - paul: i'd say this instead: in 1991 and in 2018, a majority of americans wanted stricter gun control. the number of americans has fluctuated, but the message is as true today as it was in 1991: a majority of us want stricter gun control. ~a
[2018-02-16 10:24:57] - a: Would you prefer "slowly moving toward less strict gun control"? I don't see a big difference between those two, except that one is more unwieldy. -Paul
[2018-02-16 10:24:22] - a: I think both are pretty reasonably described as "slowly moving away from more strict gun control". -Paul
[2018-02-16 10:24:01] - a: Hmmm, I disagree. I can see how such a statement can be misleading, but I don't even know if my statement is misleading. My data shows support for gun control going from somewhere around 60% to closer to 50% in about 20 years. Yours shows a drop from 78 to 60 in 25 years. -Paul
[2018-02-16 10:15:23] - "public opinion has been slowly moving away from more strict gun control" that's a misrepresentation if i've ever seen one. if 99% of the people wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment (or the 1st), and then it went to 98% of the people wanted to repeal the 2nd amendment, you'd still say public opinion has been slowly moving away from repealing the 2nd amendment? that's some spin, paul. i'd say the majority of america wants to see change. ~a
[2018-02-16 10:13:40] - a: That 60% isn't just fighting against 5%, it's also fighting against the 33% who want things to stay the same. -Paul
[2018-02-16 10:13:12] - a: I think your data supports what I said, that public opinion has been slowly moving away from more strict gun control (although it does look like it has gone back up a bit the last few years). -Paul
[2018-02-16 10:10:40] - paul: 60% should be enough to make real meaningful change. especially when they're fighting against a 5% of the population that wants less strict gun control. ~a
[2018-02-16 10:08:08] - paul: this one is way better from 2018. ~a
[2018-02-16 10:07:21] - paul: gallup says in 2008 that more people said "we need stricter gun control" than "we need less strict gun control". (gun control should remain the same was also an option, and they were also in the minority) ~a
[2018-02-16 09:59:20] - Daniel: https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment Also, I saw this Reason post and thought of you since you posted the link to that mental illness regulation. I had forgotten that the ACLU was also against it. -Paul
[2018-02-16 09:58:28] - Daniel: Even if we passed the Daniel law where only revolvers and whatnot are allowed, is there any reason to think that it would change our gun culture? I assume you are talking about banning all semi-automatic guns, which might help reduce gun deaths in the cases of mass shootings (it's always hard to measure). -Paul
[2018-02-16 09:56:55] - Daniel: "Realistic gun laws are hard because anything is so fought against" Yeah, and despite how loud one side of the aisle is on the issue, it sounds like public opinion has been slowly moving away from gun control lately (http://www.people-press.org/2017/06/22/public-views-about-guns/#total). -Paul
[2018-02-16 08:02:39] - paul: yes, i can agree on that. not sure what can be done about it though. shrug.
~a[2018-02-15 17:08:36] - daniel: well even when we are talking about "defense against tyranny" there are some compromises. Fully automatic weapons have been practically illegal for some time now and not many people think that is controversial. - mig
[2018-02-15 16:50:30] - If the question becomes what do we need guns for and what are we trying to accomplish with them and then what is required to satisfy those goals? If a goal is to fight the US army then yeah I guess pretty much all gun control goes out the window. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 16:48:21] - Like shotguns, bolt action rifles and revolvers. If those were the only guns that were legal. That would allow for home defense and hunting. Are there other use cases we need to protect / allow for? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 16:46:13] - Paul: I think on some level changing culture and mindset is going to be more important. I have a coworker who honestly told me we (citizens) need to be able to have access to military level equipment in the case we need to defend ourselves vs the gov/police/agents of the state. Like how can you find a gun control compromise with that? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 16:44:49] - Paul: Realistic gun laws or Daniel just gets to decide gun laws? Realistic gun laws are hard because anything is so fought against. Some way to set a definition of what kinds of guns are allowed. The whole "assault" weapon thing got bogged down in semantics but something where there was a white list of guns and anything else is illegal. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 16:39:37] - Paul: I would be fine with media people reporting on the shootings but not the perp. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 16:29:01] - Daniel: I have to run after posting this, so I won't be responding in the next few hours, but what kind of gun control laws do you think would help work towards changing our culture and/or reducing gun deaths? -Paul
[2018-02-15 16:27:33] - a: I do have a question for you, though, and maybe this is something we can agree on (and Daniel can chime in too). What do you think about the media not making such a big deal about mass shootings in the future? Some people think the shooters want the notoriety (not sure I buy this, but maybe it's true). -Paul
[2018-02-15 16:26:45] - Paul: I think mass shootings are a subset of gun deaths and that gun control laws over time and working to change our culture would reduce (but not eliminate) both. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 16:24:13] - a: I mean, I think the real answer is that instead of focusing on what has happened, we need to consider what hasn't. Is there any reason to think that gun control laws that are being proposed would stop future gun deaths (or mass shootings, at this point I'm not sure which we are focusing on). -Paul
[2018-02-15 16:18:27] - a: So what I am hearing is you think gun laws don't work.
-Paul[2018-02-15 16:00:26] - mig: if the shooter got their guns illegally, the pro-gun argument is: see? no law would have been able to prevent this tragedy, because you can always break the law. gun laws don't work. if the shooter got their guns legally, the pro-gun argument is: see? the laws we have wouldn't have even been able to prevent this tragedy. gun laws don't work. ~a
[2018-02-15 15:52:27] - said person. - mig
[2018-02-15 15:52:23] - Caveats that not all the facts are in, but it does look like Cruz got his gun legally, which means he did probably pass a background check, despite his disciplinary troubles at school and his disturbing social media posts. it's easy to look at hindsight and say, "oh this person should never have gotten a gun" but absent a criminal record or medical record showing mental illness, how are we supposed to "obviously" deny a gun sale to ...
[2018-02-15 14:00:13] - Daniel: "that sounds like some level of increased gun control / laws" Not necessarily. There are laws on the books and registries already set up that aren't working. Cho from the VT shootings shouldn't have been able to get a gun by existing laws. The registration system failed. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:59:57] - Paul: Sure. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:59:05] - solve the problem. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:58:59] - Daniel: But in both cases, I think the proponents of these measured responses would agree that it's never bringing the number to zero. We can try to make a dent, but there's no way to
[2018-02-15 13:58:28] - Paul: "Fix gun registries so they actually work" that sounds like some level of increased gun control / laws? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:57:56] - Paul: Right but there are different ways to try and deal with radicalization other than banning immigration which have come up in debate which is my point? There were other ideas presented and not just well not that but then we have no idea. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:57:54] - Daniel: I'm saying mass shootings should deserve a similarly multi-faceted, nuanced and measured response. Let's try to deal with mental illness. Let's try to fix our gun registries so they actually work. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:56:37] - Paul: Because D's think they have ideas that would help and work to change the culture but they are prevented from implementing them while at the same time the other side (currently represented by you) but also an entirely political party just shrugs. Its frustrating. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:56:36] - Daniel: "Also I'm confused about the immigrant thing" Yes, my point is that there can be a multi-faceted and nuanced and measured response to something as rare as immigrant terrorism. You articulated it well. The "obvious" response of just banning all immigrants is probably not the answer. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:56:29] - paul: "a bloody few years as they tried to seize guns from heavily armed owners" see you're missing the "common sense" here. you'd likely ban gun sales first. banning gun ownership would be decades from now (if ever). ~a
[2018-02-15 13:53:38] - a: https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/14/sunday-review/the-assault-weapon-myth.html "But in the 10 years since the previous ban lapsed, even gun control advocates acknowledge a larger truth: The law that barred the sale of assault weapons from 1994 to 2004 made little difference." - mig
[2018-02-15 13:51:48] - Daniel: I'm saying it's unfair to claim that I need to propose one, just like how I think it's unfair to tell you to solve the issue of terrorism. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:51:14] - Daniel: "The standard R approach to this issue" I don't have any interest in defending the standard R approach. I'm saying I don't know why I specifically have to propose some sort of magical solution to a problem when I've admitted many times I don't have one. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:50:23] - a: Well, you cut out some important words in my statement. I didn't quite say bans on guns wouldn't work. I think if the government somehow did pass a ban on guns (very unlikely) then maybe it would work, but it would also probably involve a bloody few years as they tried to seize guns from heavily armed owners. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:48:34] - a: I've no idea what public sentiment will be like in 10-20 years. I also don't know if I buy that school shootings will be doubling. I'm honestly not even that against gun control in principle, I just want well-informed laws that seem like they would work. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:35:18] - Paul: There were way more incidents of radical Islamic terrorism perpetrated by citizens born here or who moved as young kids. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:32:21] - Paul: Also I'm confused about the immigrant thing. There are only 3 attacks by immigrants I could find and they weren't people who immigrated here and immediately committed the crimes. They were by people who immigrated, then radicalized at a later time, then committed some crime. Sooo outreach to communities, working against radicalization, and less guns all might help. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:31:00] - Paul: I guess I'm confused by this line of reasoning. The standard R approach to this issue seems to be that its not a gun control issue but a mental health issue. But you are going against that? So then you think its neither a gun control issue nor a mental health issue? So what do you think it is? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:30:53] - paul: "bans on . . . guns . . . aren't likely to work" why do you think this? ~a
[2018-02-15 13:29:31] - Daniel: I think mass shootings are the same way. There isn't a clear solution, blanket bans on the mentally ill buying guns (or on certain types of guns) aren't likely to work. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:28:39] - Daniel: My point is that not every issue has some clear solution. I think Democrats largely realize (and I suspect that you do too), that there isn't a clear solution to terrorist attacks by immigrants and that blanket bans on immigration wouldn't work. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:27:12] - Daniel: Right, and again, I ask you (and the other side, since you keep bringing up sides
) to bring an idea to the table to prevent terrorist attacks by immigrants. -Paul[2018-02-15 13:25:08] - paul: depends on how many school-shootings-per-second we reach. right now we're at like 0.000002 school shootings per second (i'm totally serious). once we double that a few times, i strongly believe sentiment on what is passable and what is not will change. ~a
[2018-02-15 13:24:44] - Daniel: https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/2/6/14522132/gun-control-disabilities-republicans-nra-obama Sure, and that's a scary headline, but as with most things, it's a nuanced issue. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:23:44] - Paul: Hence my question on what ideas the other side has to bring to the table. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:23:07] - Paul: I think no laws are passable because R's (and 50% of the country) refuse to entertain the idea that they might help. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:22:31] - a: I am asking you to tell me what law that is remotely possible in terms of passing would make a dent in gun deaths. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:21:40] - Paul: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/7xqw5j/last_february_trump_signed_a_bill_making_it/ - I guess I'm not sure I believe R's actually want to? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:21:25] - paul: most of the shooters would have gotten a gun anyways? is that your argument? because i don't feel it holds water. ~a
[2018-02-15 13:20:24] - a: Sure, limit them to who? Most of these shooters pass background checks. What is the limit on how many? What type of guns should be banned? Handguns account for most gun deaths. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:18:20] - i posted this three months ago. ~a
[2018-02-15 13:17:36] - Daniel: "I'm all for programs that try to reach out to communities and work against radicalization and figure out ways to undermine radical propaganda" And I'm sure you can find plenty of Republicans who are for ways to reach out to communities to help fight mental illness. Does that satisfy you for a solution to mass shootings? -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:17:28] - chicago and baltimore are too small. think bigger. think nationally. ~a
[2018-02-15 13:16:40] - daniel: chicago, baltimore? - mig
[2018-02-15 13:15:31] - a: lol -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:15:22] - Paul: Try gun control and see if we can change our culture over time? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:15:05] - paul: limit who can buy guns. and how many. and which guns. ~a
[2018-02-15 13:14:47] - On some level, I get it. This is a super emotional topic. Few things are sadder or more angering than the thought of kids being murdered in a school. It sucks. Big time. I wish as much as anybody else that there was something we could do to prevent it. I really do. I just don't know what it is. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:13:32] - paul: i'm fine looking at suicides. ~a
[2018-02-15 13:13:12] - Paul: I just went through the wikipedia list of terrorism incidents in the US since 2000 and only found like 2 or 3 that were done by immigrants? So not sure totally what we are even talking about. But sure I'm all for programs that try to reach out to communities and work against radicalization and figure out ways to undermine radical propaganda. If we are trying to tie this into the immigration debate I'm not sure I get it. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 13:13:04] - paul: more than half of americans think we need more strict gun laws. so, limit who can buy guns. and how many. and which guns. ~a
[2018-02-15 13:13:02] - a: You mean... like how deaths caused in mass shootings is smaller than suicides so why shouldn't we be looking at suicides instead? Sure! -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:11:48] - A little more back and forth and the discussion usually ends with the other person saying, "They're not claiming to have all the answers" and usually getting mad at anybody for questioning that something has to be done and not accepting that there is no solution. -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:11:04] - paul: i'm confused by the instructions. crime perpetuated by immigrants is smaller (per 100k) than crime by perpetuated by american citizens. shouldn't we be looking at domestic terrorism instead? ~a
[2018-02-15 13:10:47] - And then somebody (sometimes me) will comment and ask what I think is a very important question: "What should be done?". The response is usually, "Common sense gun laws". The next question is, "And what are those?". -Paul
[2018-02-15 13:09:11] - What really frustrates me, and actually gets me mad on occasion, is when somebody gets on their high horse on social media and starts wagging their finger at people and saying stuff like "How many more dead children?" and demanding something should be done and railing against the NRA... -Paul
[2018-02-15 12:55:38] - Daniel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_New_York_City_truck_attack What's your (and the Democrats in general) solution to all of these terrorist attacks by immigrants and Muslims? Doesn't it seems insufficient to just shrug? -Paul
[2018-02-15 12:54:54] - Daniel: Let me play devil's advocate here and turn the tables on you then (and please feel free to point out if I am being unfair)... -Paul
[2018-02-15 12:53:43] - mig: Well maybe "solvable" is the wrong term. I'm not sure we ever get it to 0. But I think it can be addressed and improved certainly. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 12:53:04] - mig: I'm not sure that I accept gun violence is unsolvable. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 12:52:26] - Paul: I don't know that you do and its not fair to expect anyone here to magically solve gun violence but its frustrating to have ideas and think these might help! Only for them to be voted down by the other 50% of the country who then goes well we don't know what to do but not that. -Daniel
[2018-02-15 12:52:17] - a: No, I'm just saying I don't have a solution, and I'm frankly not sure there is an easy one, much like the things I mentioned (at least until we have self driving cars to fix auto deaths). -Paul
[2018-02-15 12:51:27] - daniel: is it that hard to accept that some problems may not be realistically solvable? - mig
[2018-02-15 12:50:43] - paul: you don't need to have a magical solution of course. are you arguing that doing nothing is the best solution? ~a
[2018-02-15 12:48:34] - Daniel: Completely understand you're not trying to be an ass, but why is it that I (can't speak for others or for any political group, so focusing on me) need to have the solution? I don't claim to have any magical solution to gun violence anymore than I have a solution to car deaths or suicides or cancer. -Paul
[2018-02-15 12:47:06] - I get that its a "flashy" incident and that we don't want to legislate by tragedy but I don't get how these keep happening and one of the major political parties just goes /shrug and moves on. Like I understand (kind of) not liking D's ideas but shouldn't that be a challenge to come up with some ideas? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 12:43:26] - So do Paul / Miguel / Xpovos / R's in general have any ideas about gun violence (flashy or otherwise) or is it just a big shrug from that entire side of the political spectrum? I'm not trying to be an ass but if the best that an entire political party can up with is a shrug doesn't that seem insufficient? -Daniel
[2018-02-15 12:40:03] - mig: yah. ~a
[2018-02-15 12:39:25] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_death_rates_in_the_United_States_by_state "In 2014, the overall rate of death by firearms in the United States was 10.3 per 100,000 people — the same as for death by motor vehicles — with suicides accounting for roughly two out of every three gun deaths." - mig
[2018-02-15 12:39:12] - paul/mig: so i guess i need to reframe my statements since i think i had fucked up all of the data. here's my new statement: gun deaths including suicide are now beating out death by motor vehicle. sorry again. ~a
[2018-02-15 12:38:46] - a: But, yeah, that's one of the things that I think is important to keep in mind. As I understand it, firearm suicides are a much bigger contributor to gun deaths than mass shootings. -Paul
[2018-02-15 12:37:58] - a: Ah, gotcha. I'm really bad when it comes to big (or small) numbers and messing up orders of magnitude, so I wasn't sure... -Paul
[2018-02-15 12:37:22] - a: What is the deaths per 10k population from firearm homicide, then? -Paul
[2018-02-15 12:37:03] - paul: yeah i realized that too. ~a
[2018-02-15 12:36:51] - mig: "deaths per 10k population from firearm suicide is less than 1." shit i think my original graph was out of 100k, not 10k. so it could be i'm wrong on this, sorry. ~a
[2018-02-15 12:36:23] - a: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States#Suicides "but don't worry, it doesn't change the results very much. deaths per 10k population from firearm suicide is less than 1" Can that be true while "60% of all adult firearm deaths are by suicide, 61% more than deaths by homicide"? -Paul
[2018-02-15 12:33:50] - mig: "legislation by tragedy IMO is a terrible way to do business" yeah, paul already mentioned that. today even. and nobody here has ever disagreed. ~a
[2018-02-15 12:33:13] - mig: yes (probably). but don't worry, it doesn't change the results very much. deaths per 10k population from firearm suicide is less than 1. ~a
[2018-02-15 12:31:32] - And at any rate, legislation by tragedy IMO is a terrible way to do business (see Patriot Act, 9/11). - mig
[2018-02-15 12:28:27] - a; does that "firearm death" figure include suicides? - mig
[2018-02-15 12:27:59] - daniel: It's not a matter of "don't think". Once the facts are out usually, in a lot of cases gun control proposals that get brought up almost certainly would have not prevented such tragedies from occurring. - mig
[2018-02-15 11:49:32] - Daniel: I also see a lot of comparison between how some people view guns and gun owners in the aftermath of mass shootings and how others view muslims or immigrants in the aftermath of terrorist attacks. -Paul
[2018-02-15 11:47:29] - Daniel: I think I made this comparison before, but just in case, I'll make it again: I see mass shootings as similar to terrorist attacks. They suck, and I really wish there was some way to prevent them, but I don't know what that way is. Thankfully, they are relatively rare. -Paul
[2018-02-15 11:46:32] - Daniel: Yeah, and I just don't know how effective that would be. I'm assuming most people who have guns (1) would like relatively easy access for home defense and might not use the lock and (2) would want their kids to be knowledge about guns and might even show them how to use said lock. -Paul
prev <-> next