First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last

Mass shooting streamed live on Twitch Madden tournament.

Post Reply
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18
mxdan 
12386 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

dhgshdgds wrote:


Rujikin wrote:


DipChip wrote:

Is it still too early to talk about gun control?

We need to control our property with guns and stop letting these shooters have total reign.


^ This


So arm everyone?

I'm sure that would totally work and not increase the number of incidents.

A couple thousands instances per year of accidental firearm discharges is preferable, right?

17344 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
36 / M / Scotland
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

-OlE- wrote:

This is a normal part of our society now, every now and then somebody snaps and shoots some people ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

you know if the shut in/otaku demographic could just figure out how to breed we might actually outlast normal people that like to go out and *shudder* do stuff


Normal part of our society? Damn, must suck to be an American where this kind of thing is just another day at the office...
2910 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
42 / M
Online
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

mxdan wrote:


So arm everyone?

I'm sure that would totally work and not increase the number of incidents.

A couple thousands instances per year of accidental firearm discharges is preferable, right?



Sorry bub, appeal to incredulity is a fallacy and isnt a logical rebuttal.

If there were 5-10 armed people there, then kiddie ragequits and goes to sulk on his own instead of turning madden into an FPS.


An armed society is a polite society. How much do you think things like this happen in places like Vermont? Like NEVER, because basically 'everyone' can carry, like the constitution intended.
2047 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

BushyBrowSensei wrote:


mxdan wrote:


So arm everyone?

I'm sure that would totally work and not increase the number of incidents.

A couple thousands instances per year of accidental firearm discharges is preferable, right?



Sorry bub, appeal to incredulity is a fallacy and isnt a logical rebuttal.

If there were 5-10 armed people there, then kiddie ragequits and goes to sulk on his own instead of turning madden into an FPS.


An armed society is a polite society. How much do you think things like this happen in places like Vermont? Like NEVER, because basically 'everyone' can carry, like the constitution intended.


The middle east must be supper safe then. And Americans must have world wide recognition as the politest people around
2910 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
42 / M
Online
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

wakey87 wrote:

The middle east must be supper safe then. And Americans must have world wide recognition as the politest people around


yeah, lemme just insert a particular qualifier to make a fallacy out of your comment I love it when I get idiocracy-mocked, now go replenish your electrolytes.
32995 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
22 / M / Bundaberg, Queens...
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18
It's America i wasn't surprised when it happened still not.

sad its still an issue.
mxdan 
12386 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

BushyBrowSensei wrote:


mxdan wrote:


So arm everyone?

I'm sure that would totally work and not increase the number of incidents.

A couple thousands instances per year of accidental firearm discharges is preferable, right?



Sorry bub, appeal to incredulity is a fallacy and isnt a logical rebuttal.

If there were 5-10 armed people there, then kiddie ragequits and goes to sulk on his own instead of turning madden into an FPS.


An armed society is a polite society. How much do you think things like this happen in places like Vermont? Like NEVER, because basically 'everyone' can carry, like the constitution intended.



1) Everyone can't be armed unless the government pays for it.

2) That isn't appeal to incredulity. Appeal to incredulity deals with one being unable to imagine that 'x' is true and therefore 'x' is false. I can imagine that 'x' or 'Arming everyone' is a hypothetically true premise but I assert that such a thing would have consequences.

Such as:


In 2016 there were 161,374 deaths from unintentional injuries, the overall 3rd ranking cause of death that year.

From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.
Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.
A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.
A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.
A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.


There are 325.7 million Americans. A third of those own guns so that is 108.56 million Americans. Meaning if we were to arm everyone we could expect there to be roughly 3 times the number of incidents. That is by conservative estimates an expected 1,500 number of accidental firearm deaths per year. Which comparatively isn't the same as homicides, I know, but your (and your parties) analysis is that doing so would stop homicides all together? There are plenty of well formulated studies that show the opposite:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Feel free to read them for yourself.

So not only would you potentially have an increase in homicides as a result of that kind of thinking, but an increase in accidental deaths as well.
1613 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

mxdan wrote:


In 2016 there were 161,374 deaths from unintentional injuries, the overall 3rd ranking cause of death that year.

From 2006-2016, almost 6,885 people in the U.S. died from unintentional shootings. In 2016 alone, there were 495 incidents of accidental firearm deaths.

Accidental gun deaths occur mainly in those under 25 years old. In 2014, 2,549 children (age 0-19) died by gunshot and an additional 13,576 were injured.
Adolescents are particularly susceptible to accidental shootings due to specific behavioral characteristics associated with adolescence, such as impulsivity, feelings of invincibility, and curiosity about firearms.
A statistically significant association exists between gun availability and the rates of unintentional firearm deaths, homicides, and suicides.

In the United States, over 1.69 million kids age 18 and under are living in households with loaded and unlocked firearms, setting the scene for possible tragedy if firearms are not locked and stored properly.
A study from 2014 showed that those people that died from accidental shooting were more than three times as likely to have had a firearm in their home as those in the control.
A 2001 study found that regardless of age, people are nine times more likely to die from unintentional firearm injuries when they live in states with more guns, relative to states with fewer guns.


There are 325.7 million Americans. A third of those own guns so that is 108.56 million Americans. Meaning if we were to arm everyone we could expect there to be roughly 3 times the number of incidents. That is by conservative estimates an expected 1,500 number of accidental firearm deaths per year. Which comparatively isn't the same as homicides, I know, but your (and your parties) analysis is that doing so would stop homicides all together? There are plenty of well formulated studies that show the opposite:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/more-guns-do-not-stop-more-crimes-evidence-shows/

Feel free to read them for yourself.

So not only would you potentially have an increase in homicides as a result of that kind of thinking, but an increase in accidental deaths as well.


So again, out of 161,374 Deaths in 2016. You pick to talk about 495. Roughly .3% of the total.

Then to make it sound worse, multiply it by 10 years to try to make it sound really bad.

Any study on suicide honestly has no bearing on reality as suicide methods have two effective measures that work as firearms make up 50%, that said there is obviously around half that do not use firearms. If you take a method away, a clear alternative methods exist that would be adopted. As again, the person obviously wanted to kill themselves, found the method, and did it actually unlike the majority that fail in attempts. Even if you really want to argue that is not the case, you can pick countries without guns i.e. Japan and see how high suicide rates exist without any level of ownership of guns.

The whole "So many guns unlocked!" or "3x times as likely!" Which if you read the study says its only based upon taking data from a report 10% of mortality in a certain period. So that said, guess what. It's speculation, at worse it could even be curved in favor. Or heck just cause it is randomly 10%, it could be just happen to just coincidentally align to help this study. Either way, it is a point that the study is only based upon at best 10% deaths in a period.

That all said, "if we gave more guns its gonna be 3x! as likely cause we handed out more guns!" then call it conservative example.. Riiight. It could go the vastly opposite and the sheer prolific of them around lead to the loss of using it as a power trip as guess what, EVERYONE has one. Or just the exposure would get more people educated and less stupid with how they store, use, or keep their kids away from them. But again, speculation just like those studies.

mxdan 
12386 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

Nasigno wrote:


So again, out of 161,374 Deaths in 2016. You pick to talk about 495. Roughly .3% of the total.

Then to make it sound worse, multiply it by 10 years to try to make it sound really bad.


I didn't write that. So I didn't multiply it by 10 years to make it sound worse:

https://www.aftermath.com/content/accidental-shooting-deaths-statistics


Any study on suicide honestly has no bearing on reality as suicide methods have two effective measures that work as firearms make up 50%, that said there is obviously around half that do not use firearms. If you take a method away, a clear alternative methods exist that would be adopted. As again, the person obviously wanted to kill themselves, found the method, and did it actually unlike the majority that fail in attempts. Even if you really want to argue that is not the case, you can pick countries without guns i.e. Japan and see how high suicide rates exist without any level of ownership of guns.


I wouldn't dare use Japan or any east asian country as a qualifier for typical suicide rates in the U.S. Their cultures are fundamentally different then ours and prioritize different things. It has nothing to do with the methodology.


The whole "So many guns unlocked!" or "3x times as likely!" Which if you read the study says its only based upon taking data from a report 10% of mortality in a certain period. So that said, guess what. It's speculation, at worse it could even be curved in favor. Or heck just cause it is randomly 10%, it could be just happen to just coincidentally align to help this study. Either way, it is a point that the study is only based upon at best 10% deaths in a period.


So how does that undermine my premise? My point was that not only would you have an increase in accidental deaths but there is a strong body of evidence to suggest an increase in homicides as well.

Do you dispute this?


That all said, "if we gave more guns its gonna be 3x! as likely cause we handed out more guns!" then call it conservative example.. Riiight. It could go the vastly opposite and the sheer prolific of them around lead to the loss of using it as a power trip as guess what, EVERYONE has one. Or just the exposure would get more people educated and less stupid with how they store, use, or keep their kids away from them. But again, speculation just like those studies.

So does long term exposure decrease gun related accidents for people who already own them? Actually there is evidence that people become less safe with their firearms as time goes by.

And, It's not speculation. I'm just making estimates by numbers alone.



The more guns you have, the more accidents.

Period.
2910 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
42 / M
Online
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

mxdan wrote:

So not only would you potentially have an increase in homicides as a result of that kind of thinking, but an increase in accidental deaths as well.


another display of linear thinking
15709 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
☆Land of sweets☆
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18
having more guns means more safety! this is why NRA prohibited people from bringing their own guns during Pence speech.
wait.
mxdan 
12386 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
28 / M / A Husk.
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/27/18

BushyBrowSensei wrote:


mxdan wrote:

So not only would you potentially have an increase in homicides as a result of that kind of thinking, but an increase in accidental deaths as well.


another display of linear thinking


Logical consistency is linear.

Linear thinking is easily digested and easy to follow.

Clarity is important in all forms of bureaucracy.

But linear does not have to mean simple.
24991 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
778 / The White House
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/28/18
Aaaaaand the shooter was on psych-meds AGAIN, Risperidal specifically.


Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings: https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/

10253 cr points
Send Message: GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 8/27/18 , edited 8/28/18

Rujikin wrote:

Aaaaaand the shooter was on psych-meds AGAIN, Risperidal specifically.


Psych meds linked to 90% of school shootings: https://www.wnd.com/2012/12/psych-meds-linked-to-90-of-school-shootings/



He was also hospitalized for mental illness. But people still think guns are somehow the problem.
https://nypost.com/2018/08/27/madden-shooter-had-been-hospitalized-for-mental-illness/
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.