Gun control debate (merged)

[Orangeslice13]

https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/173405.pdf

You just posted a study that concluded that the Ban did not demonstrate any benefit to public safety.

Awesome

 

[hog88]

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/mass-shootings.html

From your link

Summary: Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings is inconclusive. Evidence that high-capacity magazine bans may decrease mass shootings is limited.

 

[Orangeslice13]

The Rand study says that mass shootings were reduced by “assault weapons” but the reduction was “statistically insignificant “ and did not support the conclusion that the ban was beneficial.

Lolololol

 

[Orangeslice13]

Once again
There’s no peer review that supports a bad on assault weapons as beneficial.

 

[luthervol]

there was a ban.
There was no improvement
When the ban expired, there was no change.

From your link

Orangeslice's comment that "there was no improvement" is no more supportable by fact than the statement "there was improvement".

Which is the point I've been making for two days now.

 

[hog88]

Orangeslice's comment that "there was no improvement" is no more supportable by fact than the statement "there was improvement".

Which is the point I've been making for two days now.

So the point you have been trying to make is assault weapon bans are useless?

 

[luthervol]

So the point you have been trying to make is assault weapon bans are useless?

Not at all. My point is that they are useful.
I think it may be your point that they are useless.
It's like we disagree or something, and use "facts" to support our position.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Don’t smoke crack kids

 

[luthervol]

Don’t smoke crack kids

Because it will lead to you making unsupportable statements as fact.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Because it will lead to you making unsupportable statements as fact.

Exactly.
Don’t be like loother

 

[luthervol]

Exactly.
Don’t be like loother

Or even worse, orangeslime13.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Or even worse, orangeslime13.

Antisemitism.


Do better.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Antisemitism.


Do better.

It’s always the low iq people.

 

[StarRaider]

bigots gonna bigot

 

[luthervol]

Antisemitism.


Do better.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[luthervol]

It’s always the low iq people.

????????????????????????????????????

 

[luthervol]

bigots gonna bigot

????????????????????????????????????????

 

[85SugarVol]

You're missing the point.
There is data that absolutely supports discernable improvement.
These is data that absolutely rejects discernable improvement.
The entirety of the data is inconclusive.
That will always be the case with this issue.

No I get the point you’re trying to make here. Inconclusive.

The point you were trying to make earlier appeared to be pretty conclusive.

I say there absolutely was [discernible impact] and the data supports that conclusion.

 

[luthervol]

No I get the point you’re trying to make here. Inconclusive.

The point you were trying to make earlier appeared to be pretty conclusive.

The point I was trying to make is that while I may view it as conclusively positive, others will view it as conclusively negative, and others will view it as inconclusive.

How do you view the data?

 

[85SugarVol]

The point I was trying to make is that while I may view it as conclusively positive, others will view it as conclusively negative, and others will view it as inconclusive.

How do you view the data?

I believe the burden of proof is on the Prosecution.

As we have (by your own admission), inconclusive data

The entirety of the data is inconclusive.

I find for the Defense.

 

[luthervol]

Well let me see if I can sum up.

You’ve been clear you don’t want to ban all guns.
You want to remove a subset of guns, ostensibly assault weapons.

Is that correct?

And the outcome of these restrictions will be a “safer and more sensible” society, which will positively impact underlying safety metrics.

Is that also correct?

I do not want to ban all guns. 100% correct
I want to remove a subset of guns plus reduce the rate of increase in number of guns sold. correct
The outcome will hopefully be a safer and more sensible GUN culture. correct
The safety metrics will be the difficult part.

Yes, I realize you have been hesitant to identify which safety metrics this will have a positive impact on. That’s fine, we don’t have to nail those down - we can speak directionally.

I see 2 scenarios on the heels of this subset of guns being removed.

1. Gun related safety metrics improve.
2. Gun related safety metrics remain unchanged.

Is that fair?

I will go with fair but hard to determine.

lol..............I reject the assumption that there will be data which is universally viewed as conclusive in either direction.

 

[85SugarVol]

lol..............I reject the assumption that there will be data which is universally viewed as conclusive in either direction.

And as no conclusion can be reached, I find that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case.

 

[luthervol]

And as no conclusion can be reached, I find that the Prosecution has failed to prove its case.

What case is it that you think I was trying to prove?

Because if you really think about it, I'm the only one who did prove their case.

 

[85SugarVol]

What case is it that you think I was trying to prove?

Because if you really think about it, I'm the only one who did prove their case.

There is ambiguity with regards to the data and conclusions.

Ambiguity favors the Defense.

How did you prove your case? You have stated the findings are inconclusive.

 

[newokie03]

Dang, are ya'll not tired of beating up on him yet?