Mass Shootings in America Thread

Originally posted by dadudemon
Robtard, seems your question is easy to answer:

It's a waste of money. We should funnel the money from the overhauled gun management system into something that will stop more violent crimes, right? Your underlying objective is to reduce violent crime. Some people like to argue, "Why not both?" Because we already have massive spending issues and it is never an option of "why not both" it's "what can we get rid of so we can implement a partial on just one of these ideas?"

Guess what I think would be a far better use of those funds to reduce violent crime? Guess....go ahead... 😄

I'd like to thank you for answering with logic/reason and not an emotional rant like the NRA Four in here 👆

Indeed, "why not both" is actually valid though. Gun registering wouldn't be all that hard or complex, cars do it yearly and there's around 270million of them.

Worst case scenario nothing changes in a few years with federal gun registration and the law is allowed to end.

You calling it "self evident" doesn't remove your burden of proof.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You calling it "self evident" doesn't remove your burden of proof.

It does when I give a valid like example currently in use that works and is easy.

Repeat: Why is registering guns a bad thing? Sell me on it with logic and reasons. Go

You gave a reason, we'd need to see the numbers in order to judge whether or not it's a valid reason.

Wrong. I gave a like example in use, showing it's not hard to implement. Period. I also gave a valid/logical reason in regards to crime/justice. Period.

Surely a gun savant such as yourself can answer so simple a question: Why is registering guns a bad thing? Sell me on it with logic and reasons. Go

Originally posted by Silent Master
You haven't sold us on it being a valid and logical reason though. that would require you posting the numbers to justify it.

loss and theft would be reported to the police more often. cops can find out with a quick scan whether or not my vehicle is registered and not reported as stolen, so why is this reasonable for one potentially lethal property and not the other?

the second amendment says nothing about being able to have guns in secret, just your right to have them . also filing serial numbers is not a sure thing anymore like it was for al capone.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg

the second amendment says nothing about being able to have guns in secret, just your right to have them .

NRA chimps love to stretch the 2nd to anything they feel like; apparently it's a feelings-based amendment in regards to guns. eg I highly doubt any of the people are in a "well regulated militia".

You gave a reason, we'd need to see the numbers in order to judge whether or not it's a valid reason.

Originally posted by Robtard
I'd like to thank you for answering with logic/reason and not an emotional rant like the NRA Four in here 👆

You're welcome, good sir. I tip my hat at you. Dodging the question demonstrate disingenuous intention in the conversation. When presenting a legislative and regulatory idea, the pros and cons must be fleshed out. If the pros outweigh the cons while not violating the US Constitution, then it should be implemented.

Originally posted by Robtard
Indeed, "why not both" is actually valid though. Gun registering wouldn't be all that hard or complex, cars do it yearly and there's around 270million of them.

Yes, but that system is quite expensive. Hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, each year, for each state.

The pros must be fully fleshed out. My objection is inefficient costs to reach an objective that both you and I agree on.

Since we both are starting from the same foundation, "Reduce Violence", it will be far easier for us to have a conversation. Just shitting on your ideas gets us nowhere. Discussing pros and cons AND submitting alternative ideas (or converging our ideas), will get us out of 3-4 wasted pages of dodging.

Originally posted by Robtard
IWorst case scenario nothing changes in a few years with federal gun registration and the law is allowed to end.

I can almost agree to this. An isolated, science-based (controlled) pilot program that gets reviewed after 2-3 years and then is expanded or killed based on the results. If this idea of yours gets run as a small pilot program then I'd target a heavily populated area that is high in violent crime and especially high in gun crime. The two measures being targeted would be violent crime and gun crime.

What do you propose for the null, h1, and h2?

H0
H1
H2

Originally posted by Silent Master
You gave a reason, we'd need to see the numbers in order to judge whether or not it's a valid reason.

^
Just going to ignore what was said and do his time-waster troll bit.

What percentage of crimes are committed by legally obtained guns?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You're welcome, good sir. I tip my hat at you. Dodging the question demonstrate disingenuous intention in the conversation. When presenting a legislative and regulatory idea, the pros and cons must be fleshed out. If the pros outweigh the cons while not violating the US Constitution, then it should be implemented.

Yes, but that system is quite expensive. Hundreds of millions to billions of dollars, each year, for each state.

The pros must be fully fleshed out. My objection is inefficient costs to reach an objective that both you and I agree on.

Since we both are starting from the same foundation, "Reduce Violence", it will be far easier for us to have a conversation. Just shitting on your ideas gets us nowhere. Discussing pros and cons AND submitting alternative ideas (or converging our ideas), will get us out of 3-4 wasted pages of dodging.

I can almost agree to this. An isolated, science-based (controlled) pilot program that gets reviewed after 2-3 years and then is expanded or killed based on the results. If this idea of yours gets run as a small pilot program then I'd target a heavily populated area that is high in violent crime and especially high in gun crime. The two measures being targeted would be violent crime and gun crime.

What do you propose for the null, h1, and h2?

H0
H1
H2

I don't see this costing "billions" a year per state. It also certainly seems like 'chump change' comparatively speaking to some other ideas that we've recently heard, arming/training guards for every school, fortifying schools, ED-209 etc

I don't see a real way to test this hypothesis in a smaller controlled environment.

Maybe in Hawaii or Alaska, as they're separated from mainland US. But even then, not sure.

Originally posted by Silent Master
You gave a reason, we'd need to see the numbers in order to judge whether or not it's a valid reason.

k well i did give a very reasonable selling point. another would be a higher probablity of a murder weapon being traced to an original owner who could assist in the investigation. there are plenty of other reasons why it could prove useful but they're just going to be ignored. also, the "if it's not 100% effective then it's a waste of time" argument is a fallacious waste of time.

Originally posted by Bashar Teg
k well i did give a very reasonable selling point. another would be a higher probablity of a murder weapon being traced to an original owner who could assist in the investigation. there are plenty of other reasons why it could prove useful but they're just going to be ignored. but your "if it's not 100% effective then it's a waste of time" argument is a fallacious waste of time.

Just what SM does, ignores the points; repeats his question ad nauseum. That and has sex with his guns.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't see this costing "billions" a year per state. It also certainly seems like 'chump change' comparatively speaking to some other ideas that we've recently heard, arming/training guards for every school, fortifying schools, ED-209 etc

I don't see a real way to test this hypothesis in a smaller controlled environment.

Maybe in Hawaii or Alaska, as they're separated from mainland US. But even then, not sure.

You haven't provided any data back up anything you said, and you dont have anything to proof what DDM said is not correct. Its his word against yours.

I think it's a waste of time as I don't believe it will actually stop any crime and at best it'll only be a very miniscule help in investigating a small minority of gun crimes.

Originally posted by Robtard
^
Just going to ignore what was said and do his time-waster troll bit.

Rob this is you getting owned. Every time SM owns you, you just claim "Trolling."

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't see this costing "billions" a year per state.

I agree. If fully implemented, it would most likely cost billions for the whole nation. But millions for each state and hundreds of millions for very large states like CA and TX. Similar to the DMVs of each state.

You could propose we recoup some of the administrative costs of these programs by implementing licensing fees.

Originally posted by Robtard
It also certainly seems like 'chump change' comparatively speaking to some other ideas that we've recently heard, arming/training guards for every school, fortifying schools, ED-209 etc

Yes, those ideas are rather terrible. They appeal to immature machismos, of course. Again, those ideas aim (no pun intended) to target (no pun intended) the symptoms after the illness has already happened rather than inoculating the population to prevent the illness to begin with.

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't see a real way to test this hypothesis in a smaller controlled environment.

Maybe in Hawaii or Alaska, as they're separated from mainland US. But even then, not sure.

Oh, controlled environment. Not possible for the US because no state is isolated and guns are brought in and out of each state by the hundreds or thousands, nearly daily (probably less so for HI).

Originally posted by Robtard
Wrong. I gave a like example in use, showing it's not hard to implement. Period. I also gave a valid/logical reason in regards to crime/justice. Period.

Surely a gun savant such as yourself can answer so simple a question: Why is registering guns a bad thing? Sell me on it with logic and reasons. Go

Sorry, not selling you on your bridge to terabithia.

Originally posted by Silent Master
...at best it'll only be a very minuscule help in investigating a small minority of gun crimes.

I disagree on the degree that you represent this point. I think, at worst, it will help solve more gun crimes. Again, that's still going after symptoms after the illness has happened rather than preventing the illness to begin with...so it's rather a waste of time unless the only objective is to have a faster or higher "solved case" stats.