Several Wins for Pro-2nd Amendment Campaigners! - Open Carry, 3D Printed, ect. - Polidicks

Lol nice. I thought I said that it's never been linked to me, as in none of the low effort replies I've ever gotten on the subject. The difference between you and me is that I'm willing to read sources and improve my understanding of a subject, as I will be doing tonight, as I said in the thread, which you even replied to very somewhat helpfully, considering I recall you (or someone else, can't remember) disregarding "facts and data" because they're from hard anti-gun sites. But hey, we live in a post-truth society, so maybe people will start believing you when you just claim without evidence that I've been "proven wrong for the umpteenth time" when those threads usually just boil down to me providing academic sources and you guys going "no lol" The reason I'm excited about Zombieman's massive data dump of papers is because, guess what, I can be wrong, but it takes more than some gun-nut just saying "no" to change the mind of a skeptical person. But hey, being honest is hard, accepting that you can be wrong is hard, and actually changing your mind is even harder. It's not like I hold any emotional reason that means I HAVE TO be against guns. Just the research I've read points to guns being a luxury good (unlike the practicality of cars, as you like to say a lot) which disproportionately increases violent crime rates whenever legislation controlling guns is relaxed. Now, check it, there's two things that can happen now: I read the sources and become a gun rights advocate because the facts show it's all gucci I read the sources and compile a list of counter-arguments because the sources cited are shite There is some middle ground in which some sources in Zombie's thread are crap, and some of which are good, in which case I'll point those out and accept the ones that are sound.

*Gets schooled hard over and over and over and over and can never provide a proper counter argument "Well we just live in a post-truth society so im still right even though im wrong".

"doesn't provide any evidence of either anyone getting schooled or provide any sources instead insists that a quality post done by someone else two months ago has always been there and has always been given to everyone everywhere" "we win ok guns save all humankind and have never killed anyone" Since you're being dishonest and using hyperbole, I thought I might as well.

I could use this thread as evidence, where you immediately shitposted and used incorrect data to back yourself up. Please provide me a thread where you didnt base your entire argument on emotional fallacies, correlation fallacies, or where you proved anybody wrong.

I don't recall when I used an 'emotional fallacy' as a point in an argument. My first post in this thread was an opinion, that I believe it's sad that more people will die unnecessarily. I will say I posted an incorrect link as the second hyperlink, that's my bad. So I guess the "correlation fallacy" you're talking about if the whole "correlation does not equal causation" thing? It's always hard to connect causation in assessing the impacts that legislation/laws have on these things in general, not just because it's guns. I go back to my standard answer of Donohue et al's paper http://www.nber.org/papers/w23510 which concludes that states which had chosen not to adopt right to carry laws would have a smaller homicide rate as a result.

The last thread where you actually committed to the debate was where you went full bore emotional. "I just dont want more people to die unnecessarily" is an emotional appeal, so great job there.

Yeah, and that's why I'm motivated for doing this, not an argument I use for why you should think the same way I do... wth man

Yea, nobody wants people to die dood, even me. You trying to incriminate your opponents by appealing to emotion makes you misguided, not righteous. As I've stated previously, your entire argument is based on your emotion towards guns, not in any facts or reason. Yea its so frickin easy to make an emotional appeal, that makes you weak, not right. Just because you make an easy argument doesnt make it right.

Can't wait for you to glance at the mountain of evidence against you, wring your hands, close the tab and pretend none of this ever happened until the next thread that gives you an opportunity to whine about americans comes along, you absolute fucking child

This comparison really, really doesn't work. Rain is something entirely out of our control. It's a natural phenomenom that just happens at random. Buying umbrellas in response to it can never impact how much rain we have (okay, one could argue that increased umbrella production contributes to climate change but that's a bit leap to connect umbrellas directly to rainfall). The weather is incapable of giving a fuck about how many umbrellas are bought, it's not a system of actors. People buying more firearms for legal concealed carry can impact the homicide rate (postitive and negatively) due to how it directly affects connected aspects such as the firearms market, the criminal arms race to match the rise in potential CC'ing targets (if you've drawn first it's kinda hard for them to react after all), more legal firearms having a chance to be stolen for use in crime/ go missing from the manufacturing line/ be sold by a particularly uncaring dealer to someone who should never have one, etc. The American gun crime problem is a product of having such an over productive gun market, with relative ease of access. Yes there are other contributors (poverty, societal fragmentation, etc) but it is still asinine to downplay to role of legal firearms in gun criminality. And it's absurd to compare it to something like rainfall and umbrellas.

Those other contributors you mention are the biggest ones. So trying to write them off as a minor footnote is dishonest or ignorant at best.

Well it's a good thing I wasn't writing them off then. Just mentioning them because I know if I didn't you'd all have one hell of a problem with that as well. I'm also inclined to say the general distrust and weirdly distributed law enforcers aren't a massive help here either. In some poorer cities it must feel like Christmas every day to enterprising criminals who know the police just aren't well equipped or populated enough to deal with them. There's honestly a myriad of causes for the problems you guys face with this stuff, but much like you mentioned about writing off poverty and the like as a non-issue, you should also be cautious to not write off the legal market itself as a problem. Regulation isn't the enemy if it's done well, it's not going to be done well considering who you've got fighting against it and the group fighting for it not actually giving a fuck enough to do it right.

We're specifically discussing conceal carriers vs homicide rate. People getting conceal carry licenses has no impact on the market supply. People get CHLs to defend themselves and areas with higher homicide rates will see an upward trend in CHL holders if conceal carry is legal in that place. EcksDee is trying to say that the causal relationship is the reverse of that; i.e. people are getting conceal carry licenses and then causing homicides. Read his post:

It's two part. First source in that post explains why that's true. Allow me: "The results of the linear regression analyses were similar. Here, shall-issue laws were significantly associated with 6.6% higher total homicide rates compared with may-issue states (95% CI = 3.0%, 10.4%; data not shown). The association was specific to firearm homicide rates, which were 11.7% higher in “shall issue” states (95% CI = 6.4%, 17.2%); there was no significant association between these laws and nonfirearm homicide rates. Further disaggregation within firearm homicides showed that the association between shall-issue laws and firearm homicide rates was specific to handgun homicide. Shall-issue states had handgun homicide rates that were 19.8% higher (95% CI = 10.3%, 30.1%), but rates of long-gun homicide were not significantly different in states with shall-issue compared with may-issue laws. The significant association between shall-issue laws and higher total, firearm, and handgun-related homicide rates remained when we restricted the analysis to the 23 states in which these laws were adopted during the study period (Table 3). This pattern of results was robust to a series of additional sensitivity checks, including using raw count data, restricting the analysis to states with a population of more than 1 000 000, restricting the analysis to the period 1991 to 2002, restricting the analysis to the period 2003 to 2015, and using SHR instead of WISQARS homicide data. "Our analysis provides further support for the hypothesis that the relationship between shall-issue laws and higher homicide rates increased over time, as the regression coefficients for these laws was higher for the second half of the study period (2003–2015) compared with the first half (1991–2002)." "Our finding that the association between shall-issue laws and homicide rates is specific to handgun homicides adds plausibility to the observed relationship. If the relationship between shall-issue laws and homicide rates were spurious, one might expect to see the relationship hold for long-gun as well as handgun homicide rates. Moreover, this finding is inconsistent with the hypothesis that permissive concealed-carry laws deter crime by increasing the presence of armed individuals. Were that the case, one would expect to see lower handgun, nonhandgun, and nonfirearm homicide rates in shall-issue compared with may-issue states. The lack of an association between shall-issue laws and long-gun homicide rates is also inconsistent with the hypothesis that the presence of more concealed weapons escalates the level of violence in encounters that may involve a long gun." Despite these limitations, this study suggests that there is a robust association between shall-issue laws and higher rates of firearm homicides. The trend toward increasingly permissive concealed-carry laws is inconsistent with public opinion, which tends to oppose the carrying of guns in public.27 Our findings suggest that these laws may also be inconsistent with the promotion of public safety. I haven't yet been able to read through Zombie Dude's entire list of sources, but first impressions aren't exactly optimistic on academic quality and impartiality. I'll compile a list of reasons why if I feel like it.

Ditto. EcksDee in a previous thread for whatever reason stated "the majority of guns should be banned" and that "the 2nd amendment should be repealed" while citing a study on crime rates in relation to the issuance of concealed carry permits. The study stated that murder rates were higher in many states with looser concealed carry restrictions, but did not come even remotely close to making the claim that gun bans and confiscation would solve the issues in any capacity. Regardless of that fact, EcksDee decided to run with that narrative and grossly misrepresented the findings of his sources. Then backpedaled over technicalities and went "oh I never said anything about an Assault Weapons Ban!" after I called him out on it. Then when other people called him out on his bullshit, he acts like a pretentious primadonna above the rest of everyone on his way out of the thread. Then the door smacks his stupid ass on the way out, as he attempts push through said door which is marked "pull".

The gun market in the US is not entirely unregulated, it's actually rather well regulated and works most of the time. The issue right now is the division of government responsible for enforcing these laws on the federal level, the BATFE, is disgustingly corrupt, inefficient, broken, poorly trained, under funded, and did I mention corrupt? FFL's who purposefully or accidentally sell to those who can't own firearms basically face no repercussions unless that person goes on a mass killing spree. This is still correlation and not causation my dood. The highlighted bits do not explain away the idea that perhaps shall-issue states are shall-issue for a reason. Also, hm This literally writes off many states with lose restrictions on concealed carrying that have low homicide rates which could impact the study in a manner that would contradict the hypothesis of the study, especially if they're pulling data tables from 30 years ago. That seems kind of intentional to me. You're also clearly cherry picking pieces of that paper thats so conveniently behind a pay wall. Either post the whole thing, host the whole thing, or find another paper to cherry pick from. Maybe you can find another study that contradicts you more clearly?

They never predicted the internet either. Are you saying free speech is not protected online? Or that the NSA has the right to all information on every computer within their borders?

I remember you yourself (Or someone on this forum, you all meld together after a while) saying that it's easy for you to go to a backyard dealer at a fair and buying a gun off them no questions asked. That doesn't sound like well regulated to me. I see you're continuing the tradition of not reading the source. Allow me to help you again. "Nevertheless, caution should be exercised in assessing causality from an ecological study such as this one. In particular, these results should be interpreted with caution because of the possibility that they reflect a reverse association. That is, it is possible that the adoption of shall-issue concealed carry laws is associated with higher baseline homicide rates so that we are picking up not a causal effect of these laws on homicide but a systematic difference in baseline homicide rates between states that do or do not have these laws. However, our findings hold even when the analysis is restricted to states that started with may-issue laws at the beginning of the study period and adopted shall-issue laws during the study period." So, since you need some help, let me TL;DR it: Causality is very hard to determine in legal cases. The causal relation might be reverse. Shall issue laws could have been a response to homicide rates. However, our findings (That crime increase follows shall issue) hold even when the analysis only considers states where shall issue was adopted after the beginning of the study period. You're once again incapable of reading. Seems like a pattern with you guys. "The significant association between shall-issue laws and higher total, firearm, and handgun-related homicide rates remained when we restricted the analysis to the 23 states in which these laws were adopted during the study period (Table 3). This pattern of results was robust to a series of additional sensitivity checks, including using raw count data, restricting the analysis to states with a population of more than 1 000 000, restricting the analysis to the period 1991 to 2002, restricting the analysis to the period 2003 to 2015, and using SHR instead of WISQARS homicide data." The point they're making is that the same conclusions applied even after several types of sensitivity checks. It doesn't mean that the only data they used was of high population states... A reading rainbow for you. Really? The only thing in your rebuttal I literally JUST NOW saw was "Nuh-uh" and "I forgot my reading glasses at home" I don't cherry pick. I leave that responsibility to you guys.

My sarcasm was blindingly obvious you fool.

Get over yourself god damn.

It's amazing you can get any air with your head that far up your ass. Your study does not prove a causal link. Your study is flawed at its foundations, excludes pertinent data that would dramatically alter the outcome, and cherry picks outdated information to further bend the results toward the conclusion they had already reached before they began their "study." This is not science, it is not a valid study, and even if you take all the hopelessly manipulated data at face value and pretend it hasn't been warped, it still doesn't establish a firm conclusion. This study is bullshit. You don't know shit. You're a rare breed of dipshit who's so convinced you're right that you're willing to lie and twist facts to try and convince other people to agree with you. But here's what I think: if you have to lie and twist and buck and scream and try to paint your opponents as heartless babykilling mass murderers because your bullshit study is a sham, you should have enough self awareness to realize you're fucking wrong. And since you don't, it's not worth continuing this argument.

Sorry, I've spent too much time on Reddit. They're not sarcastic there.

Omfg get real dood. I give up just like the last 5 times we've discussed this. Your stubborn, hard headed, emotional, non-sensical stupidity completely disallows you from seeing or understanding absolutely anything. Go read Zombines compendium so you can get your ass schooled. I'm tired of doing it and you not understanding.

Two years ago(or there abouts) reading your poor arguments for gun control, and Grendiacs posts countering your own quite literally changed my mind on gun control. You are not good at this "communicating" aspect of this, or at analyzing the data it would seem.

Blat Blat Binder Posting this again for the glue huffers.

Why does this 'argument' keep being brought up? It makes no sense. If you truly believe you have a point there, why don't you support just getting rid of laws altogether?

"It's all happened before, and it will happen again..." Every Gun Thread

"lol look at UK, people getting knifed and ran over by cars" "oh ye, drugs are illegal, please tell me how it's impossible to acquire drugs" "but this small X change wont have major impact, lets just keep things as they are so I can keep hoarding muh guns" "I need muh guns to overthrow government anytime I want" (Legit argument used few months ago in one of threads, which was fucking hilarious and idiotic at the same time).

I don't see why that means I should support getting rid of laws. What I'm saying is that if someone is murdering somebody why would they care if they are breaking a magazine capacity restriction or some other pointless restriction? They're already MURDERING someone purposefully by shooting them. All these restrictions do is screw people over. "Magazines holding more than 10 rounds have been banned in California since 2000, but a previously intact grandfather clause allowed lawful owners who purchased high-capacity magazines before the law to keep them. Proposition 63, passed by 63 percent of voters in 2016, eliminated the grandfather clause. A section of Proposition 63 required owners of guns with high-capacity magazines to surrender lawfully purchased property or face criminal prosecution. The ban was to take effect on July 1, 2017." Ninth Circuit Upholds Block of California Gun Magazine Ban It criminalizes people just for even having a 11+ capacity magazine. How would that stop murders? It's literally just screwing over people who kept their high capacity magazines. Criminalizing them for no reason. I didn't say "get rid of all laws ever" in that post at all, nor did I allude to it. Well I've never said any of those things aside from "but this small X change wont have major impact, lets just keep things as they are so I can keep hoarding muh guns" I guess? I really don't know what you're trying to say here. Personally I usually try to stay out of these sorts of threads, because I am terrible at arguments and shit. It's all very heated. I mean look at my first post in this thread Hell it's taken me an hour or so to write this up because I keep trying to make sure I'm getting my points across properly. I just don't see how forcing people to give up magazines or not being able to share 3D printer blueprints would cause everything to get better, even over time. America's a shitty place with fuckheads who are going to murder people either way. The only cool thing we Americans get is guns, everything else pretty much sucks compared to other countries. I want Trump gone as much as everyone else, but I'm not going to go all Lee Harvey Oswald about it. It's not like I voted the prick in, I voted Democrat all the way because I'm not a single issue voter. I'm not one of those overthrow the government people, I'm not a crazed vigilante. I'm just someone who wants to have guns and have fun with 'em. Not get treated like a criminal because something I enjoy is also something that can be used for horrible things. I don't ever want to fight anybody, I don't even conceal carry guns. All I want is to shoot at paper targets and collect cool guns and not get restricted by stupid feel-good laws. Luckily I don't live in California

Except your post said: You weren't claiming that specific restrictions like bans on certain magazine were useless. You claimed that any and all restriction including a blanket gun ban would have absolutely no effect on gun crime rates because criminals don't follow laws in the first place. This makes no sense at all. The discussion on specific equipment ban is irrelevant, it is the crux of your argument that is flawed.