Yeah, I'm a hardcore liberal/democrat in almost every way, and I hate Trump and the current US Government and status quo more than almost anything, and I think you're going off the deep end, @Big Dumb Patriot
Erm there are many highly developed nations with pretty lax firearms rules where you can actually own more dangerous guns than you can here. I don't think you understand how heavily regulated guns are in the US already.
I suppose countries with sensible gun laws will have to start cracking down on cases of printing guns the same way they crack down on people downloading child porn. Scary world when any dickhead can make a gun
To be fair, from reading BDA's posts, this admin is fucking with his personal life with his health insurance and friends and family being fucked by them. So it would make sense if hes hostile towards the general idea of the party that is in power. He should take a break to cool down for a month or two.
did bda stare into the abyss for too long
Point is if you're the "innawoods" sort who would want to do such a thing, it's totally do-able.
Looking at your per capita gun ownership numbers, evidently not regulated enough.
Before you say anything, I absolutely 100% agree that things like education and income inequality absolutely factor into gun crime and gun death numbers.
That being said, concealed carry does disproportionately increase violent crime rates. Source 2
The amount of guns people own does have a statistically significant effect on crime in general, and taking away guns does correlate with decreased crime in general.
The latter two studies are international, the first is US only. All show that less guns = less crime in general, mainly because there's no substitution effect with guns.
Here's an abstract's conclusion that I really like:
Conclusion:
The United States and other nations with high firearm ownership rates may be particularly susceptible to future public mass shootings, even if they are relatively peaceful or mentally healthy according to other national indicators.
So Switzerland, for example, with its conscription and proper gun education
I wish I had full access to some of these articles so I could read more on the methodology, but their conclusions aren't as vague as statistical analysis usually is.
I don't really understand what you're saying here
There is no reason to "start cracking down on homemade guns" because it's a virtually nonexistent problem. Especially when compared to how many lives would be saved with proper gun control.
Is that more clear?
Yes.
Of course it's not a problem right now (and there's still the matter of getting/making bullets), but I'm talking about a future in which more complex semi-automatic guns can be printed, when 3D printers are a lot less primitive
it is motive that makes the extremist
For @ShitSherlock and @proboardslol
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nh0miJ4Y3RM
You can buy full auto guns in Switzerland no problem, it's one extra paper to sign and takes no longer than buying any other gun. They are also significantly cheaper than in the US. A full auto MP5 costs about $2500 in Switzerland vs $30,000 in the US + all the licensing you need here.
Is Switzerland not a developed country?
It's more than just 3D printing at hand though. This opens up detailed planes for more traditional made firearms, along with detailed instructions and how-to's/where-to's for parts. Semi-Auto designs ala Luty's will become more prevalent, and all the DIY gunsmiths will come out of the woodwork with all sorts of homebrewed designs. There's plenty of examples of guys making semi-autos using very basic tools and plumbing parts.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G14kwbUj1rA
This was made by the barely 20 something on the left with the only things not made by him being the mag, stock assembly, fire control, and sights/sight mount. The actual functioning bits that make it go bang was all assembled by him using saws and a welder, and the fire control could have been made had Mark Serbu not donated it to him. The barrel might have been a blank, but it's also not terribly difficult to make one and there's even videos on to how to make and use a hand rifling tool. Now he didn't publish any detailed plans or what specific hardware store parts he used, but that is now within the realm of possibility as you won't get slapped for violating ITAR.
He's been like this for a while tbh
What do you mean? Switzerland generally prohibits automatic firearms.
Switzerland also has more strict requirements for actually getting a permit than the US as far as I know.
Also every weapon is registered, and every trade is documented. I remember you advocating for backyard deals.
Also every time you want to buy ammo, you need to get a permit.
Also concealed carry is generally only given to people who work security or are in the military, and requires a plausible need to carry to protect self.
Switzerland has tougher gun laws than the US.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Switzerland
Uh, no. You’re just resorting to lies at this point.
Your first source said violent crimes were happening in many places which passed right to carry laws. NOT that they were caused by those laws. However I can’t read the full thing because it’s behind a paywall, but I’ve seen either you someone else cite the exact same claim while attempting to pass off correlation as causation.
The second source I haven’t read all the way through, but figure 3 in the PDF (on page 14) shows that at worst, crime rates per capita went way down the year of shall issue license policies being implemented, but slowly averaged back up to the same levels as they were around 10 years before the policy was implemented. At best, the crime rates just started a slight downward trend. I don’t know what kind of manipulative voodoo magic they had to do on their model to come to the conclusion of a “more guns = more crime” correlation based on that chart they used in their own study. Seriously what the fuck?
And another thing you link says the following: “There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to compensate for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership”.
Once again correlation is not causation, and the USA is definitely not a country with lower gun ownership rates. I’m also going to call bullshit on suicides not being susceptible to other means due to the fact of Japan’s ridiculous suicide rates despite having virtually no guns. Conversely in New Hampshire, more people are dropping dead over here due to drugs than guns, despite both being widely available.
Wait, I missed this post
Explain it, please. This entire post is a literal flat-out fucking lie. It is literally fake news. Nice to know you aren't better than trump supporters.
lmao knock this shit right the fuck off.
Trump supporters are actively supporting an administration that is imprisoning and taking to trial actual toddlers. That is trying it's damned hardest to disenfranchise as many minority voters as possible. And that has almost certainly sold itself out to foreign powers. Spreading conspiracies and outright lies are their modus operandi.
BDA is mad at a weird guy on an Internet forum who has a peculiar obsession with militia groups. BDA as a rule of thumb doesn't lie about shit, this is an edge case where, honestly, several others are unsure as to the status of "is joey currently in a weird gun club" or not.
Very comparable. Definitely.
It was pretty obvious that I was talking about the quality in relation to discussion, not the actual views. My post didn't mention the opinions being held whatsoever, but presenting fiction as truth is exactly what trumplets do.
1) First source isn't behind a paywall.
If you're gonna call me out for "resorting to lies" then read the sources.
First source specifically talks about how it's very difficult to connect correlation and causation in gun crime statistics, but it immediately goes on to use "arguably the most important innovation in the policy evaluation literature in the last 15 years" as a statistical analysis tool. (Page 34)
Next title is "Estimating the Impact of RTC laws using synthetic controls".
The synthetic controls methodology, which is becoming increasingly prominent in economics and
other social sciences, is a promising new statistical approach for addressing the impact of RTC
laws.39 A number of papers have used the synthetic control technique to evaluate various influences
on crime. Rudolph et al. (2015) construct a synthetic control for the state of Connecticut
yielding evidence that the state’s firearm homicide rate (but not its non-firearm homicide rate) fell
appreciably after the implementation of a permit-to-purchase handgun law. Munasib and Guettabi
(2013) use this methodology to examine the effect of Florida’s “Stand Your Ground” law, concluding
that this law was associated with an increase in overall gun deaths. Similarly, Cunningham and
Shah (2017) study the effect of Rhode Island’s unexpected decriminalization of indoor prostitution
on the state’s rape rate (among other outcome variables); Lofstrom and Raphael (2013) estimate
the effect of California’s public safety realignment on crime rates; and Pinotti (2013) examines the
consequences of an influx of organized crime into two Italian provinces in the late 1970s
By comparing what actually happened to crime after RTC adoption to the crime performance
of the synthetic control over the same period, we generate estimates of the causal impact of
RTC laws on crime.40
And after that it describes the methodology for several pages. If you want to argue the facts, go do it with Donohue, Aneja and Weber, since they're the statisticians that concluded RTC laws do , according to our best statistical analysis tools, directly contribute to increased crime rates.
2) Page 14's tables are talking about shall-issue laws. They have several pages of text talking about how the effects of SILs are measured.
https://i.imgur.com/E1HbLuF.png
This means a very ambiguous positive effect of SILs, though seemingly only visually. They later on find that SILs have "essentially zero effect on deterring violent crimes" at page 43.
Which in a nutshell means "Good guy with a gun idea is bull"
I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish by pointing at tables inside the paper which concludes that "eliminating all passed SILs from the beginning would reduce total violent crimes by about one third by 2011" (Page 31 and 32)
If you have a problem with the "manipulative voodoo magic" whatever that means then go talk to McElroy and Wang. They're the researchers, not you.
Or, what you could do is not lie about reading the paper.
https://i.imgur.com/llBw2cV.png
Would you look at that, page 2 has context for why they think certain studies are erroneous and why their study includes more factors for a more accurate result.
3) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1485564/pdf/cmaj00266-0071.pdf I found the full text.
"And another thing you link says the following: “There was no negative correlation between the rates of ownership and the rates of homicide and suicide committed by other means; this indicated that the other means were not used to compensate for the absence of guns in countries with a lower rate of gun ownership”."
And the exact following sentence:
Larger studies are needed to examine more closely possible confounding factors such as the national tendency toward violent solutions, and more information on the type and availability of guns will be helpful in future studies. Nevertheless, the correlations detected in this study suggest that the presence of a gun in the home increases the likelihood of homicide or suicide.
https://i.imgur.com/K4WAK9F.png
https://i.imgur.com/9O3ln6Y.png
Page 2
"Once again correlation is not causation, and the USA is definitely not a country with lower gun ownership rates. I’m also going to call bullshit on suicides not being susceptible to other means due to the fact of Japan’s ridiculous suicide rates despite having virtually no guns. Conversely in New Hampshire, more people are dropping dead over here due to drugs than guns, despite both being widely available."
https://i.imgur.com/sYXJP3g.png
last page. Giving the examples of one country and one state could just as easily be outliers, which is why I'm just calling them anecdotes. I'd like some research on them though. Something which says something like: "People in a country without guns will likely substitute the gun for a different means to commit suicide"
Except because the substitution effect doesn't exist for gun suicides, that probably doesn't exist. If it does then lay it on me.
Yeah, but you’re framing your argument as “less guns = less violence” which is clearly false, instead of arguing for better laws to keep guns out of the wrong hands and better enforcement of current firearms laws.
I've just shown with several sources (which you decided either not to read or cherrypick) where less guns does in fact strongly correlate with less violence.
"Presenting fiction as fact" is what a lot of people do when frustrated and making bolder than required claims. The comparison just doesn't work because BDAs claim isn't trying to actively harm anyone, he's just (apparently? like I said a few people don't keep up with the daily life of Joey) wrong.
Not being subversive. It's just dismissive and wrong.
For what it's worth I can reasonably get behind the kind of fervour BDA has been using in his posts because people should be getting mad at the current US administration and it's supporters. They should be unrelenting in how they go after patently false claims and awful arguments. "oh but you'll upset the moderates " shouldn't be your prime concern when you're arguing against people supporting fascism after all. Shutting fascists down should come first and foremost. So I don't quite get this whole kickback BDA is getting about his recent posts (and this large increase in anger is way more recent than "the last few years", it's more the last few months).
Does the 2nd amendment still apply to coil guns and laser guns? Because if I'm 3d printing some goofy looking brick, it better be packing.
jesus man you need to step back from facepunch for a while, i don't know what's happening in your life but this forum quite clearly is not making it any easier
Can you link some proof for that please? If you're right then people should know, so.
Not to say BDA's post wasn't awful (it is, and I can't see what could possibly compel him to think it was a good idea to go after him personally like that) but I don't see what making long posts about Trump has anything to do with him being dangerous. Further, it's a bit hypocritical to (rightly) castigate someone for trying to portray someone else as dangerous or unstable then do the same to BDA over political posts you don't like.
https://openparliament.ca/committees/public-safety/41-1/14/dr-caillin-langmann-1/only/
"To summarize the results, no statistically significant beneficial
associations between firearms legislation and homicide by firearms, by
the subcategory long guns, and spousal homicide, as well as the criminal
charge of “discharge of a firearm with intent”, were found. "
For Canada. In other words, no gun control in Canada has had any effect on homicide with a firearm, or homicide in general.
Additionally, the Czech Republic allows Concealed Carry, and it is actually the most commonly issued form of gun license:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_Czech_Republic#Carrying_a_firearm
However despite having fairly liberal gun laws, and shall-issue concealed carry, the Czech Republic has a homicide rate of only 0.61/100K people a rate lower than Canada, Australia, England, Germany, France, or South Korea, all places with stricter gun control laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
Evidently, simply having access to guns, and the ability to use them, is not the sole contributing factor to murder rate. As a matter of fact, if we look at Serbia, #2 in guns per capita at 58 guns per 100 people, it has a homicide rate of just 1.35/100k, which is lower than Canada (#10) and Finland (#14), both of which are countries that are often associated with strict gun control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country
There is also the following that shows increases in homicide rates following gun bans in a few places, including England and Wales, and Ireland:
https://crimeresearch.org/2013/12/murder-and-homicide-rates-before-and-after-gun-bans/
So no, "international evidence" does not show conclusively thast "gun bans" do anything useful. Prohibition of any kind rarely ever has the effect of eliminating that thing, or the issues associated with it, from a society.
Apparently we’re reading two different things then because I’m seeing this:
”Online access to NBER Working Papers denied, you have no subscription”
“You may purchase this paper on-line in .pdf format from SSRN.com ($5) for electronic delivery.”
w23510.pdf
If you mean the first source.
You really need to grow up man. Youre so deep into politics that all of your posts and views are completely toxic to this forum.
Youre basically the left leaning Tudd at this point, but youre way more hateful. Youre fabricating lies and presenting libel against a user because you disagree with him. Youre doing the exact same thing right wing extremists do.
So congrats; in your quest to be rid of assholes you became an asshole yourself.
Why has this thread come to criticizing BDA on a personal level? Put your fucking psychoanalyses back in your pants where they belong, guys.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
