I just saw a list of the victims on CNN and a lot of Jewish looking names. Coincidence?

Even that is wrong, which is frustrating on my end because it's clearly wrong. It may WEAKEN the correlation argument - I can grant that it does because it's not enough to really care - but it does not "directly contradict" the argument.

Separately but also importantly, the situation we're discussing is (1) gun numbers increase, (2) violent crimes decrease by 10%, let's say since you said it, and (3) gun deaths remain steady. Given that gun numbers have increased while per household ownership has DECREASED, does that mean there are more people with access to more guns, or just more guns accessible by the same people who already had lots of guns in the first place? I believe we know the answer is the latter. Given that gun deaths remained steady during a violent crime decrease, does that not demonstrate that gun deaths do not correlate in a linear fashion with broader crime rates? Or, perhaps, SOMETIMES they do not?

The answer to those from both of us SHOULD be "I don't know, frankly," both because (1) data is completely awful on this (which as you rightly pointed out stems from early '90s Republican legislation designed specifically to PREVENT study of gun violence by the CDC and by other researchers - and I mean, that speaks for itself but to be clear, holy **** that is unethical and horrendous), and (2) we don't know.

What I'm saying, though, is that my position is not a polar interpretation of the data. I have not stated certainty and have taken pains to indicate where CORRELATION explicitly does not mean CAUSATION. You, though, make assertions of absolute fact based on ambiguous information and expect me to feel as though you have somehow established baseline assumptions that are not only seemingly not true, but are also not credible interpretations of the data. They're POSSIBLE interpretations, but they're not compelling.

And then of course I will resort to the issue of argumentative burden. I'm saying that the proliferation of things designed to kill people correlates very strongly with our otherwise first-world country being a country where those things designed to kill people kill more people than anywhere else (comparable) in the world, per capita, and that the difference is exponential. You will disagree, and fine, but I don't think that undermines my point that the burden is yours.

Grunching,

Did Hoya and Ikes just become best friends?

Whole point of the thread is engagement with the ISSUES yo, I appreciate his PASSION.

Sounds GOOD, have FUN

Nice quote, that I said nothing remotely close to. I mean there wasn't even any rooting going on, more like gloating that is was white guys, and sure these white doods turned out to in fact be your more typical MOSLEM TERRORISTS, but still.

huge magnet

--

havent read the whole back & forth between hoya and ike but have they mentioned that fewer guns = fewer people get shot yet. surely that should end the argument

Page 1 ITT: Everyone joking around, having fun.

Page 2: Ikes comes in.

really enjoying Hoyas posts here. Keep fighting the good fight.

I'm sure there is a correlation between stance on guns and IQ.

Man the gif that shows up for the title of this thread using the app is just too perfect.

Clark,

I'll hit your 6.5 bid

Ooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh.

It's almost Friday afternoon. I wonder what Barry and Rahm have to dump today.

Feel the Bern!

is that racist? maybe! but he's also right.

How is it racist?

not empty quoting

What does this mean?

To not be rhetorical, the capitalism implied by this open ended statement sounds like an extension box the current corporate state with a worse social safety net to aid rises out of poverty or social climbing by the working poor or middle class. When I hear "true capitalism", the details just seem like a dystopian sci-fi flick.



Was going to reply with this on state lines. All the more reason for a federal ban.

Serious question for people against an extreme federal ban, related to Hoya's initial gun post: what is the benefit of not having a federal ban? I seriously struggle to find one and am trying to have some understanding of why there is pushback in the form of "NOTHING COULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS CRAZY PERSON" which completely ignores that they are speaking to people who don't understand the benefit of guns to our society.


This is like the mainstream media's version of rappers warring on YouTube and Twitter. I like it.

LOL NY Post. **** them.


1.) Huh?

2.) What if he did want to ban all guns? Is this bad?

3.) But there what was proposed can only be a positive gain, right? If not, what are the negatives. You're speaking to people who literally are not factoring in negatives here and will not understand you until they are spelled out.

4.) So, why not a federal civilian ban except for registered militias? Is an assault weapon ban unconstitutional? Should the constitution not be changed to clarify the 2nd Amendment or scrap it altogether? The current version is uncontroversially flawed.

I've seen the word "libetarian" bandied around a few times itt. I can't say I know exactly what that is. Would anybody here want to give me an overview of Libertarianism including a detailed breakdown of its relative merits?

Keep the poors down but let em get high and whore around

I put this together for a Skype conversation but whatever, I think it's largely right. It's missing GLOBAL WARMING, among other obvious things.

generally, I think that businesses should have the right to make decisions for themselves. paid parental leave, for instance - if a business wants to have a generous policy or a cheap one, I think that should be their right to decide. I don't support taxes to help people have children as I think that's a personal choice. and really the world doesn't need any more people, sorry. (and I say this as a father)

I think reasonable people can disagree with that stance - but like that's a common issue I tend to side with "capitalists".

A libertarian is whatever the individual him/herself calls a libertarian and any deviation is viewed by said libertarian is not libertarian.

Not trolling, I say this as someone who considers myself a libertarian, but libertarianism isn't really a political system so much as a tendency against authoritarian means and ends, whereas conservatism isn't really a system so much as a tendency toward strengthening existing forms of power or even the tendency to not deviate from an existing system when that system is aimed toward limiting power. So a strict Constitutionist could easily be viewed as both a libertarian who is so skeptical of government power that it must be limited by the contract and a conservative in that they view deviation from these limits ruin the integrity and legitimacy of the government.

No one is extremely libertarian or conservative, as both extremes promote a society of unhindered extreme power. Basically self-defeating fascism. But there are libertarian and liberal and conservative approaches to issues which can overlap or not.

These NY Daily News covers are really gettin the haters mad. It's beautiful.

Redefining words itt (a loon off his meds shooting up a theater isn't terrorism)