3543: Top Gun w/ Dustin Nickerson

[nordcharonmir]

Originally Posted by CsisandDesist

Which one of these two is preventable?

I argue, neither. You argue interpersonal violence is preventable. Others will argue both are preventable - see climate change enthusiasts.

Let's use an example you like better. More likely to die in a school mass shooting or to die driving to school? Both will meet your idea of "preventable" if we just eliminate all vehicles and all transport of any kind then people can't die in transit, right? Is there any unintended consequence in doing this? Will the technology of transit systems somehow magically disappear? Is the cure worse than the disease? Have we not as a society evaluated speed limits recently and found that raising speed limits was actually the best answer for the society when we were trying to find a reason in "da science" to lower them?

[CsisandDesist]

Originally Posted by nordcharonmir

I argue, neither. You argue interpersonal violence is preventable. Others will argue both are preventable - see climate change enthusiasts.

They both are to some degree preventable, but climate change, you're immediately trying to start another argument. Prevention from lightning is not climbing the highest tree around flying an all metal kite with metal wire. Ridiculous statement to make, climate change enthusiasts.

Originally Posted by nordcharonmir

Let's use an example you like better. More likely to die in a school mass shooting or to die driving to school? Both will meet your idea of "preventable" if we just eliminate all vehicles and all transport of any kind then people can't die in transit, right? Is there any unintended consequence in doing this? Will the technology of transit systems somehow magically disappear? Is the cure worse than the disease? Have we not as a society evaluated speed limits recently and found that raising speed limits was actually the best answer for the society when we were trying to find a reason in "da science" to lower them?

If you ask enough silly questions I guess you make another argument right.

Let's put it this way, since we are all about putting it different ways.

An 18 year old with no training obtained an Ar-15 on his actual 18th birthday, with no training, no evaluation and/or testing, has changed the lives of an entire community. Not a lot of accidents take 21 lives at the same time.

You're equating things like a psychopath.

I have been and used weapons most of my life in my various jobs and service, I don't take this stuff lightly. What is happening in the US is the very definition of insanity.

Supported by an amendment made in the 1700's, for a "well trained" militia. Well none of these shooters are well trained nor are they a militia.

Raising speed limits, such a silly argument.

I cycle about 14,000 KM a year on roads and gravel etc, raising speed limits kills people. Now if you want to actually make a point, raising speed limits on highways makes sense and minimums for each lane of a highway makes even more sense. Less chance of disparity of speed.

Neighbourhoods, should be much lower than currently.

Stop asking questions to make a point and make your point.

[nordcharonmir]

Originally Posted by CsisandDesist

They both are to some degree preventable, but climate change, you're immediately trying to start another argument. Prevention from lightning is not climbing the highest tree around flying an all metal kite with metal wire. Ridiculous statement to make, climate change enthusiasts.

Yes, there are ways to minimize but not a way to prevent lightning from striking nor for interpersonal violence to occur. We will differ on what those ways are. I think a polite well armed society is safer (and historical data agrees) you appear to think mother government will hold you to her bosom and has your safety and best interest at heart (has never appeared to be true in the history of human governance).

Originally Posted by CsisandDesist

An 18 year old with no training obtained an Ar-15 on his actual 18th birthday, with no training, no evaluation and/or testing, has changed the lives of an entire community.

Let's talk solutions to this because I also think this is bullshit. Is it legal to sell a gun to a person with suicidal idealization? NO. Is it legal to forge government documents like a background? No, its a felony. Did both these things happen for him to illegally purchase these guns? YES. Has the news, like almost always, claimed an illegal firearm sale was legal just because the kid didn't get arrested/caught for it at the time? Should this child who told a bunch of different people he was going to shoot his grandma and a grade school have been properly reported? YES, was he? NO. Will making more laws make more criminals follow laws? No.

P.S. Why would you want a criminal trained? Shouldn't we have the training go to good guys. Maybe a how to close and lock a door training. Or a basic CQB training for officers, etc?

Originally Posted by CsisandDesist

Not a lot of accidents take 21 lives at the same time.

This is the most informative and important sentence of your response. First, this morning there were 22 casualties in a single accident. Not important to the main point but just to point it out again; just because one thing is blasted at your face by the media and another is completely ignored doesn't mean one thing is real and another doesn't exist. The main point here is that you are highlighting the point that it is due to the bunching of casualties in single events, even though EXTREMELY RARE events, there is a greater emotional reaction. This is paramount to the point. It is an emotional reaction and not a rational reaction. If we approached this rationally instead of hyping up manifestos and blasting horror stories and covering funerals constantly to drive an emotional response we would be evaluating the NET effect of firearms. I know we can't fully do this because the cost of the US loosing guns is speculative but if we just used some simple metric already available for the net effect...like maybe the FBI stats, that would be a rational, dare I say "common sense" approach. Any idea what the net effect on casualties in the USA of firearms are on interpersonal incidences? Probably not cuz it's not on the news...hint its VERY positive.

Originally Posted by CsisandDesist

Supported by an amendment made in the 1700's, for a "well trained" militia. Well none of these shooters are well trained nor are they a militia.

I'm sorry Csis you've been reading too many memes. Is that what the second amendment says? No. You literally misquoted and took out of context and misunderstood a single sentence. This is Rod level work, try harder.

Originally Posted by CsisandDesist

Raising speed limits, such a silly argument.
...
Stop asking questions to make a point and make your point.

It is and was apt to the point of cost benefit analysis.


Here is your required reading to get up to speed a little: The Bell Curve, That Every Man Be Armed, & The Better Angels of Our Nature. These should give you at least a small base to operate on the issues at hand namely historical trajectory of violence, causes of different types of violence and origin and application of the second amendment. If you finish these and have deeper dive questions around the statistical methodologies or philosophic applications I'm always here for you and can address at that time.

[Keith]

How do you mean?

[nordcharonmir]

Csis got me talking all about the guns perspective...it's so easy to fall into this trap. The issue is these kids' mental health struggles. Just look at the cycle. Almost to a a perfect correlation we see no dad, depression pharma like crazy, social isolation (see comments on lockdowns), sexual displacement or degenerations, lots of red flags where ANYONE could help and NO ONE does. Again, see my previous inquiry around why the 1980s seems to be such a turning point for this mold of young men.

[shoebootie]

Originally Posted by nordcharonmir

Csis got me talking all about the guns perspective...it's so easy to fall into this trap. The issue is these kids' mental health struggles. Just look at the cycle. Almost to a a perfect correlation we see no dad, depression pharma like crazy, social isolation (see comments on lockdowns), sexual displacement or degenerations, lots of red flags where ANYONE could help and NO ONE does. Again, see my previous inquiry around why the 1980s seems to be such a turning point for this mold of young men.

Get fucked.

[XenoTitty]

Originally Posted by shoebootie

Get fucked.

Yes this is just the kind of forums cuckery Nord lives for. They’re edging themselves through 18 paragraphs of pseudo-intellectual right-wing talking points, just begging for some punishment. When someone finally gives them a tongue lashing, not even the Hoover dam could hold back the shame-fetish induced splooge they erupt with. Not trying to yuck any yums here, but the only thing sadder is Keith’s dad trying to get attention with a chili recipe. Hey, anyone else remember when they got caught making fake accounts to argue on a forums where everyone hates them? Ahahahahhahahaa you can’t make this shit up, what a sad clown with a sad clown life

[vezione]

Originally Posted by nordcharonmir

You called mental health a "boogeyman"?

Ah, I can see how you could take it take way, but the context was within the framework of Republicans saying mental health is the only thing that deserves attention. And by doing that, they make mental health a boogeyman. Not that I think mental health is a boogeyman. I would love it if more seriousness was taken regarding the issue and more resources were utilized by the people who need it. Sometimes, they don't seek treatment because of the Boogeyman created by Republicans which serves to increase stigma. People are the VA have cited not wanting their names on a mental healthcare treatment list lest their guns get taken away as a reason for not seeking treatment. If you ask me, that's one example of the circular blame game where people are dissuaded from getting help instead of seeking it out -- a consequence of focusing solely on generic "mental health".

And to answer your question: having the gun is the common factor in all these cases. Mental health can play some percentage but cheap, easy access to a tool whose sole purpose is to kill (and its accessories) is present and accounted for 100% of the time in mass murderers where's firearms is used. Furthermore data has been able to show that the mental health of shooters should not come as a surprise (https://www.theviolenceproject.org/m.../key-findings/) but what substantive policies or changes to the system are being made? I assume the reason people bring up mental health is to imply they shouldn't have access to guns. So, it's not like restricting access to certain types of weapons and increasing the difficulty in getting them isn't the goal. Of course, if all you're really doing (as those on the right seem to be) is blowing smoke up people's asses, action to address the goal isn't something we would get. And that's what we see. No action. You always heard math teachers telling you to "show your work" and that's my starting position on this issue. Show your work or shut up cause you're probably cheating somehow.

[vezione]

Originally Posted by XenoTitty

Not trying to yuck any yums here

This is my version of Keith needing to see movies lol

[nordcharonmir]

Originally Posted by vezione

Ah, I can see how you could take it take way, but the context was within the framework of Republicans saying mental health is the only thing that deserves attention. And by doing that, they make mental health a boogeyman. Not that I think mental health is a boogeyman. I would love it if more seriousness was taken regarding the issue and more resources were utilized by the people who need it. Sometimes, they don't seek treatment because of the Boogeyman created by Republicans which serves to increase stigma. People are the VA have cited not wanting their names on a mental healthcare treatment list lest their guns get taken away as a reason for not seeking treatment. If you ask me, that's one example of the circular blame game where people are dissuaded from getting help instead of seeking it out -- a consequence of focusing solely on generic "mental health".

I totally agree with you that mental health should be made more available but think the path there is through de-cartelizing providers, de-monopolizing through government intervention and direct to consumer options rather than government mandating it be tied to employment for some unfathomable reason. Biggest problem here still is that sick people or their families have to DO SOMETHING proactive to get treatment. I think these peoples families should absolutely be held liable too if it can be proven in court that they intentionally ignored multiple warning signs. These violent acts of suicide seem to have lots of opportunities where they could have taken proactive steps to stop them way up stream from gun restriction. And like I've been trying to communicate even if we remove legal gun access they will just get illegal guns (as keeps happening in almost every case) or they will use more effective tools which frankly will end up with more people dead in their public suicides.

Originally Posted by vezione

And to answer your question: having the gun is the common factor in all these cases. [a gun] is present and accounted for 100% of the time in mass murderers where's firearms is used.

This is silly pants. This is a definitional logical fallacy. 100% of the time a camel is used when someone rides a camel. Pointless statement. And yes, I know Keith said this same thing on an episode and he made the exact same fallacy.