What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Days Since Last Shooting II

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

SJHovey said:
You know, you seem to spend a lot of time fantasizing about about a certain segment of our society. I understand who you think your boogeyman is...
Click to expand...


A lot of his thoughts on these matters are no more useful to the discussion than his equivalent on the far right.


I have no use for either extreme.

The real world exists in the giant and diverse space that is the middle.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

bigblue_dl said:
Unfortunately, we can have as many productive discussions around here as our hearts desire, and that really does nothing in the grand scheme.
Click to expand...


Yeah, but considering different viewpoints, even if we disagree with them, makes us better as individuals.

That benefits society in some small way. Or at least the society that we come into direct contact with.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

You know what's funny? I see all these left-wingers calling for gun bans, yet guess what they were doing once they found out Trump would be the next President... they actually went out and bought.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Gurtholfin said:
I have no use for either extreme.

The real world exists in the giant and diverse space that is the middle.
Click to expand...

Non worthwhile extremes on both sides are identifiable in that they have hatred of "the other" in common. They exist to do damage to someone else. Productive discussions are based on the common good...
...I know I know, "shuttup FALSE EQUIVALENCY!" the all-purpose shout-down for a hater.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

SJHovey said:
You know, you seem to spend a lot of time fantasizing about about a certain segment of our society. I understand who you think your boogeyman is. The rural white male, walking around in camo with a Sig Sauer strapped to his waist. Making YouTube videos of him blasting away at target with his AK, NRA card in his wallet, confederate flag in the back window of his pickup, as he waits for church to start.

What I find hilarious is that those aren't the guys who are doing ***** like Las Vegas. Instead, it's frequently just troubled kids, non-white Americans who have been pushed too far, people from populated and traditionally liberal areas of the country or a member of the military who snaps. It ain't your boogeyman, pal. They get it out of their system making the YouTube videos.
Click to expand...

I think you missed the context of my remarks. We were talking about the possibility of political violence from the far right if Trump is impeached. That is why I hopped on my hobbyhorse. If we were talking about violence in general I quite agree that the scope is much more broad and primarily takes in the type of low self-esteem, low education marginalized people who are attracted to any type of radicalized violence.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

geezer said:
Non worthwhile extremes on both sides are identifiable in that they have hatred of "the other" in common. They exist to do damage to someone else. Productive discussions are based on the common good...
...I know I know, "shuttup FALSE EQUIVALENCY!" the all-purpose shout-down for a hater.
Click to expand...

FE is probably overused but it is sometimes apt. Also, the all-purpose shout-down of the hater is "you have thoughts I deem bad therefore you are bad." Which again, sometimes is apt (paging Hitler) but more often it's sloppy.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

joecct said:
A WaPo OpEd by Kep's friends at 538.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...8c702d2d975_story.html?utm_term=.425b1a742c61
Click to expand...

So unlike many, I took a look at this.

The author, Leah Libresco, basically said her research said that increased gun control doesn't help. She referenced research that she had done while at 538. When I followed to see the research, there was an obscure article in 538 about gun controls enacted in Britain and Australia. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/ Her net conclusion was not that the laws in Britain and Australia don't help...but rather were inconclusive. Frankly her conclusion was rather dubious anyways. She admitted that gun violence was down...but said you just 'couldn't tell what would have happened without gun controls'. But modern research uses a very simple mechanism for that...a case outside the test for comparison. So if you look at the US during that period...gun violence/mass shootings went up...in stark contrast to Britain and Australia where they went down.

The authors claim that gun controls don't help are strictly based on the authority in her past research...the results of which used poor methodology and were misrepresented. Whether they clearly transfer or not, the examples of Australia and Britain reinforce the case for gun control.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

5mn_Major said:
So unlike many, I took a look at this.

The author, Leah Libresco, basically said her research said that increased gun control doesn't help. She referenced research that she had done while at 538. When I followed to see the research, there was an obscure article in 538 about gun controls enacted in Britain and Australia. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/ Her net conclusion was not that the laws in Britain and Australia don't help...but rather were inconclusive. Frankly her conclusion was rather dubious anyways. She admitted that gun violence was down...but said you just 'couldn't tell what would have happened without gun controls'. But modern research uses a very simple mechanism for that...a case outside the test for comparison. So if you look at the US during that period...gun violence/mass shootings went up...in stark contrast to Britain and Australia where they went down.

The authors claim that gun controls don't help are strictly based on the authority in her past research...the results of which used poor methodology and were misrepresented. Whether they clearly transfer or not, the examples of Australia and Britain reinforce the case for gun control.
Click to expand...
You're trying to refute a study that utilized regression testing to find statistically significant factors (population density, income/capita, demographics, general attitude towards violence, population age, etc.) and refuting them with a nation entirely outside the those included in the study. You're not doing yourself any favors here.

What she's saying is that it's not known if gun control measures there were THE cause, A contributing cause, or completely irrelevant in the decrease of gun violence. The regression models couldn't create a high enough confidence factor to responsibly state the cause.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

bigblue_dl said:
This is the kind of poorly thought-out comment that does nothing to advance the discussion.
Click to expand...

How is it any different than the position that shooting stuff is fun, and the people who shoot things for fun are responsible, therefore it's ok?
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

jerphisch said:
How is it any different than the position that shooting stuff is fun, and the people who shoot things for fun are responsible, therefore it's ok?
Click to expand...

Because there is no such thing as responsible meth use? :rolleyes:

You've gone full loon. Step back from the ledge.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Because there is no such thing as responsible meth use? :rolleyes:

You've gone full loon. Step back from the ledge.
Click to expand...

Ok, my mistake for including the responsible part from a recent post. It has been stated on this board that shooting is really fun, and if people just tried it they would change their position. The shooting is fun, so guns are fine logic has absolutely been used here.
 
5mn_Major said:
So unlike many, I took a look at this.

The author, Leah Libresco, basically said her research said that increased gun control doesn't help. She referenced research that she had done while at 538. When I followed to see the research, there was an obscure article in 538 about gun controls enacted in Britain and Australia. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths-mass-shootings/ Her net conclusion was not that the laws in Britain and Australia don't help...but rather were inconclusive. Frankly her conclusion was rather dubious anyways. She admitted that gun violence was down...but said you just 'couldn't tell what would have happened without gun controls'. But modern research uses a very simple mechanism for that...a case outside the test for comparison. So if you look at the US during that period...gun violence/mass shootings went up...in stark contrast to Britain and Australia where they went down.

The authors claim that gun controls don't help are strictly based on the authority in her past research...the results of which used poor methodology and were misrepresented. Whether they clearly transfer or not, the examples of Australia and Britain reinforce the case for gun control.
Click to expand...

Crime is way down in the last 25 years and mass shootings have been flat dating back to the 70's. It is cause for concern that the mass shootings are getting significantly larger in scope.

I say this as someone who is obviously very pro gun, it really is remarkable to me that there haven't been more shootings related to conceal carry. I'm a huge proponent of people owning guns but think there should be more stringent requirements to carry. It's one thing Mass gets completely wrong.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

St. Clown said:
You're trying to refute a study that utilized regression testing to find statistically significant factors (population density, income/capita, demographics, general attitude towards violence, population age, etc.) and refuting them with a nation entirely outside the those included in the study.
Click to expand...

And in fact the statistical regression showed declines in the kinds of violence it was supposed to. She spent most of the study trying to refute the results - and is now a gun control opponent. Not shocking. In the end the world is full of ivory tower researchers, she probably should have actually gone there and studied it first hand.

40% of Australians are happy with laws as they are. Just 6% want a return to weaker gun control...with 45% wanting even stronger gun controls than the massively restrictive controls they have now. https://newmatilda.com/2015/07/21/whos-right-nra-or-85-cent-australians/

Gun control made Australian society better.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

jerphisch said:
Ok, my mistake for including the responsible part from a recent post. It has been stated on this board that shooting is really fun, and if people just tried it they would change their position. The shooting is fun, so guns are fine logic has absolutely been used here.
Click to expand...


The bolded was stated. You added the rest.

And yes, target practice is fun just like any other pursuit that involves skill.

Trap/skeet is essentially practice for duck hunting - which is also fun, or so I'm told.

You know that there is shooting in the Olympics, right?


Again... the far left and their hysterics and hyperbole are actually a net detriment to anything ever changing.
 
Re: Days Since Last Shooting II

Gurtholfin said:
Again... the far left and their hysterics and hyperbole are actually a net detriment to anything ever changing.
Click to expand...

Why is it the right is so focused on what an individual says...and uses it to ignore dealing with the issue. All the right does is try unsuccessfully to refute facts...and ultimately walk away when they can't.

I have never seen gun proponents offer any substantial evidence/facts in support of lax gun controls.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top