[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News

[Advertise on 4chan]

Name
Options
Comment
Verification
4chan Pass users can bypass this verification. [Learn More] [Login]
  • Please read the Rules and FAQ before posting.
  • There are 51 posters in this thread.

08/21/20New boards added: /vrpg/, /vmg/, /vst/ and /vm/
05/04/17New trial board added: /bant/ - International/Random
10/04/16New board for 4chan Pass users: /vip/ - Very Important Posts
[Hide] [Show All]


Janitor acceptance emails will be sent out over the coming weeks. Make sure to check your spam box!

Self-serve ads are available again! Check out our new advertising page here.


[Advertise on 4chan]


>https://www.politico.com/news/2021/04/07/biden-executive-actions-guns-479704
>https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-executive-actions-gun-control
>https://www.nationalreview.com/news/biden-to-issue-executive-order-requiring-background-checks-for-so-called-ghost-guns/
>https://www.rawstory.com/joe-biden-gun-control/
Looks like billets of aluminum and pipes are going to be banned via royal decree. Good news is this means there is little movement in the senate for gun control outside of trying to hide bullshit in the infrastructure bill like they did with the covid one, but they are limited to just spending and not actual laws in reconciliation. I don't think the dems have 50 votes in the senate for anything the house has passed, let alone 60. Dems also are trying to push a house bill that would ban online ammo sales and contact the feds if you buy 1,000 rounds of ammo, which in 2019 was like $20 worth of .22lr
>>
>>821376
>ban online ammo sales and contact the feds if you buy 1,000 rounds of ammo, which in 2019 was like $20 worth of .22lr
Yup.
Jan 6 scared porky.
He's tightening his grip.
When the prole stormed the Capitol on Jan 6 they chose not to bring guns
Porky wants to ensure that the next time his house gets stormed the prole *can't* bring guns
>>
>>821379
They didn’t have guns because open carry is illegal in DC. Considering most of the crowd crossed state lines to get there they would’ve gotten arrested before they could even gather together.
>>
>>821376
>Oh no, no, no, no - m-more comprehensive background checks so psychos and Dear Leader cult white nationalist/supremacists c-can't buy guns and perpetrate mass shootings or overthrow Democracy
Annnnnddddd 90% of Americans clapped and cheered!
>>
>>821379
True that
>>821382
>Considering most of the crowd crossed state lines
muh state lines. DC isn't a state. It is a colony of the USA. The people who live there aren't American.
>>821385
I don't think you know what you are actually talking about. This doesn't change nics at all. This is just to make you need a background check to buy something that isn't actually legally a gun. Biden is changing a legal definition without the consent of the legislators.
but hey, you are british and I don't know british law so I guess we are even
>>
>>821385
Yeah, its definently legally purchased firearms in the hands of white Americans which shoot people most often.
You're very astute.
>>
>>821382
>They didn’t have guns because open carry is illegal in DC
They were trying to execute an insurrection by following the word of law?
Come on man
>>
>>821376
Maybe stop random killings that target women and children
>>
>>821401
If you don't want dems cracking down on guns than fix the root cause.
>>
>>821412
You do realize that nearly all gun murders of children are black gang members shooting other black gang members? Interracial violence is rare as fuck and the majority of 0-17 year olds killed by gun murder are boys of color (black and hispanic) who typically have gang affiliations.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/d3xe5y/race-is-a-huge-factor-in-child-gun-deaths
Tell blacks to stop having kids out of wedlock to fix this shit
>>
>>821413
Are you suggesting genocide or deportation of Americans?
>>
>>821418
No?
>>
>>821415
That's cool. Maybe fix that, dumbass
>>
>>821376
Bump
>>
>>821421
Then how do you solve the problem?
>>821438
based page one to still page one bump
>>821423
Are you suggesting genocide or deportation of Americans?
>>
>>821394
>make you need a background check to buy something that isn't actually legally a gun.
Then why are you whining, Sally Sue? If it's not a gun it isn't covered by your Jeebus thrice blessed 2nd Amendment now is it? Btw, I'm not Nigel, I'm Jimmy Jocephus from AL. I don't live in a flat either, I have a right nice spot of front and back garden at my detached house.
>>
>>821442
Typical clueless republikkkunt. Can only point fingers and fixes nothing.
>>
>>821461
I'm not sure how you plan to fix the fact African American culture is toxic as fuck
>>821457
>Then why are you whining, Sally Sue? If it's not a gun it isn't covered by your Jeebus thrice blessed 2nd Amendment now is it?
"needing a background check to buy a 2 by 4 and pipes"
I am annoyed because he is expanding his authority without going through congress
> Btw, I'm not Nigel, I'm Jimmy Jocephus from AL. I don't live in a flat either, I have a right nice spot of front and back garden at my detached house.
You do realize you used multiple bong slang words that don't get used in actual english in that sentence?
>>
>>821468
>I'm not sure how you plan
Not my problem. Full stop.
>>
>>821470
I would not call black on black violence my problem either.
>>
>>821474
Then what are you complaining about?
>>
>>821481
You are the one bitching saying I need to fix black on black violence and how african american culture is toxic
>>
A order from a Democratic Republic isn't a Royal Decree.
The science backs this up as well.
Only losers and cowardly people cling to weapons anyway.
>>
>>821482
You brought it up moron
>>
>>821484
>A order from a Democratic Republic isn't a Royal Decree.
Biden doesn't have the power to write laws, the congress does. Biden was also not elected.
>The science backs this up as well.
What script are you on, chang?
>Only losers and cowardly people cling to weapons anyway.
only losers and cowardly people are afraid of the people owning guns. When only the government owns guns, genocide follows
>>821485
They dems blame blacks with stolen guns when they want to deny normal people their right to keep and bear arms because they are planning genocide?
>>
>>821490
Your broken English is uncomprehensible.

Only Coservatives are pro-gun, and they blame minorities for crimes with weapons.

There is no right to keep and bare arms in an unregulated fashion.

It has always been "a well regulated... to keep and bare arms".

The key there is "regulated".
>>
>>821468
>You do realize you used multiple bong slang words that don't get used in actual english in that sentence?
Are you really so dense that you can't realise you're being totally manipulated and fucked in the snout by someone pretending to be a bong by using trigger words or is that just part of your schizoid psychosis?
>>
>>821493
>Your broken English is uncomprehensible.
Google translate is giving you that much trouble?
>Only Coservatives are pro-gun,
and?
> and they blame minorities for crimes with weapons.
because most murders done in the USA are done by black men.
>There is no right to keep and bare arms in an unregulated fashion.
Just because you say something, doesn't make it true
>It has always been "a well regulated... to keep and bare arms".
>The key there is "regulated".
A. Post the rest of the quote, chang
B. You already lost this case, faggot. See heller.
>>821496
considering how much you seethe whenever someone calls you Thomas Gage, I really don't see how you are the one manipulating anyone, Nigel
>>
>>821413
we can't because if we even mention the root cause, Democrats will ban us from social media sites and get us fired from our jobs. Soon they'll be throwing us in jail for identifying the root cause.
>>
>>821490
>They dems blame blacks with stolen guns
Who cares of they're stolen. Its their human right to have them.
>>
>>821503
Oh no! You poor victim :'(
>>
>>821413
FBI statistics clearly show that there is a group comprising 1/8 of our population that is responsibly for 50% of all homicide.
Guess who?
>>
>>821413
Fbi statistics also show us that another group, comprising 77% of the our population, is responsible for about 45% of the gun homicides.
Can you guess who this is?
I'll give you a hint, these people make you clutch your pearls more than any other
>>
>>821516
Poor people.
>>
>>821517
People without jobs.
>>
>>821516
Ok. So you've reached step 1: identify the problem. Now set 2 is brainstorming ways to fix it. Do you have any feasible actually productive solutions?

I'll wait
>>
>>821517
That's very a very cool statistic you've found. Why are you telling me this? I'm not interested in easing up on gun control. That's your objective
>>
>>821526
Enforce the laws already written. Increase minimum sentences for felons in possession of firearms. Follow up on suspected straw purchases. Follow up on some guy buying 100 80% kits in chicago instead of a regular guy buying 1. Increase NICS funding so they can modernize it. Force states to offer CC reciprocity.
>>
>>821493
>A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed
Read that and tell me whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
>>
>>821516
According to https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls it's black people
>>821517
According to https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls it's whypipo
>>
Fact: in the United States over time the rate of gun control legislation is positively correlated with the rate of mass shootings

This is a fact
>>
>>821534
>Enforce the laws already written
Does not reduce criminals.
>Increase minimum sentences for felons in possession of firearms
Loading prisons doesn't reduce criminals

Gun theft isn't a problem at all tbh.
>>
>>821536
The "well regulated militia" clause governs "the "shall not be infringed" clause. Do they not teach you English sentence structure in the god, guns and grits jeebus belt? And before you sputter "w-well regulated meant like clockwork" realise you just dug yourself a deeper pit because it is manifestly a broken cuckoo clock chiming the hour of death every 5 minutes for at least 1 American often more. Your ass needs regulating like a broken clock and soon. Americans are sick of hearing your cuckoo death bang-bangs every few minutes.
>>
>>821536
Probably the guy who is a well regulated arms owner
>>
>>821539
correlation =/= causation
>>
They always want guns guns guns but don't want to answer to the gun deaths. So irresponsible of them.
>>
>>821544
>The "well regulated militia" clause governs "the "shall not be infringed" clause.
Please explain how "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is restricted by "a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state." The first clause justifies the second. It does not change that the right belongs to the people or that the right, of the people, shall not be infringed. The rest of your rambling sounds like something you need to sort out with the constitution, not me. Pass an amendment if Americans are really so sick of it.
>>
>>821552
>Please explain how
Don't have to. SCOTUS already did.
>>
>>821382
>They didn’t have guns because open carry is illegal in DC

I was packing, it was just not in the open.
>>
>>821556
SCOTUS also decided an implied right to privacy means the state has no legitimate interest in human life until the third trimester of pregnancy. Sometimes they make shit up for fun. I want you to think this through on your own and explain it to me.
>>
>>821543
Then keep releasing criminals early, that certainly had nothing to do with the spike in crime last year. What are your solutions? Punish regular citizens with more ineffective restrictions? I didn't realize criminals get all of their guns legally. All those DOJ studies must be wrong.

>>821544
The Heller decision tells us you're wrong, Nigel. This is a very sad hobby you have.
>>
anyway here's shit from the White House
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2021/04/07/fact-sheet-biden-harris-administration-announces-initial-actions-to-address-the-gun-violence-public-health-epidemic/

>The Justice Department, within 30 days, will issue a proposed rule to help stop the proliferation of “ghost guns.”

>The Justice Department, within 60 days, will issue a proposed rule to make clear when a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle subject to the requirements of the National Firearms Act.

>The Justice Department, within 60 days, will publish model “red flag” legislation for states

>The Administration is investing in evidence-based community violence interventions.

>The Justice Department will issue an annual report on firearms trafficking.

>The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
>>
>>821568
Not interested in playing 20Qs with a schizo gun nut LARP who threatens to kill people on the internet
>>
>>821572
>What are your solutions?
Take away guns. LOL
>>
>>821509
kek
>>821517
>>821537
77% of the pop includes hispanics too, who are not differentiated from whites for crime states.
>>821543
>Does not reduce criminals.
it reduces the crimes they commit
>Loading prisons doesn't reduce criminals
again, it reduces the crimes they commit
>Gun theft isn't a problem at all tbh.
gun theft accounts for 43.2% (the plurality) of guns used in crimes
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/suficspi16.pdf
>>821544
>>821545
We had a case over this Thomas Gage, you lost. See Heller.
>>821556
>>821577
The SCOTUS said in Heller that the operative clause was "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and that the militia clause was a justification and in no way limited the operative clause. This got Judge John Paul Stevens (may he burn and suffer eternally in hell) to write a whole book bitching about the wording of the 2nd amendment
>https://www.npr.org/2014/04/26/306837618/justice-stevens-six-little-ways-to-change-the-constitution
Even a cuck who ruled against Heller thinks you need to change it to
> the right of the people to keep and bear arms when serving in the militia shall not be infringed.
For your argument to have merit
>>821575
fucking red flag laws to murder people in their sleep for owning guns. The rest is nothing other than fuck David Chipman
>>821578
there are over 400,000,000 in private hands and we just had 12 months that all set records for guns sold. In 2020 the Cali AG said 1/3rd of guns sold went to new gun owners and somewhere between 1 and 2% of the population that could legally buy a gun bought their first gun that year.
So come and take it. You can't put Pandora back into her box
>>
>>821376
>>821376
Oh look - a bunch of Conservative alt-news sites that only peddle to dipshits.

Cope.
>>
>>821757
>politico
>conservative alt-news
also it fucking happened you retard, see >>821575
Is whitehouse.gov also a conservative alt-news site?
>>
>>821575
pretty toothless
>>
Cant we just make all guns illegal save single shot hunting rifles? We dont need guns how many more pepple need to die before we can drown out the gun owning retsrds?
>>
Divider in Chief was already what you said about Obama. On top of that Democrats working with Republicans is why shit sucks. Republicans like Trump dont work with Democrats. You are the divider you lying piece of shit.
>>
>>821841
>how many more pepple need to die
all of them
>>821842
Dems are the dividers, through government action or propaganda. Trump and Bush were uniters. Clinton, Obongo, and Biden try to divide the USA through rhetoric and denying human rights. It's literally their job, it is what Soros and the chinese pay them to do
>>
>>821841
No. Even where there are "assault weapons" bans, no guns are actually confiscated it just causes prices to rise on pre-ban firearms. These laws won't reduce crime they just discourage lawful gun ownership.

>>821842
The president will always get a stupid nickname, get over it. We heard nothing but Drumpf and T-rump for the past 4 years and we're still hearing it. I didn't vote for trump so don't even bother.
>>
>>821575
>>The President will nominate David Chipman to serve as Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
This is the faggot who said he wanted to ban .50 cals and when someone asked him if they were ever used in crimes he said 2 helicopters at Waco, where he had the ATF mass murder 82 people including 25 kids, got shot down. Even though that never happened and no one on any of the helicopters were injured and no helicopter crashed. And >muh crime in mexico, as though that would be a remotely valid reason to deny people in the USA their rights.
>>
>>821376
>haha just try and pass anything you democuck we'll block everything in the senate, it wont even reach the floor
>NOOOOO YOU CANT JUST USE EXECUTIVE ORDERS TO GO AROUND US ONLY TRUMPERINO CAN DO THAT!!!!!
>>
>>821921
He didn't actually do anything see >>821575
and no conservative is for executive orders regardless of party
>>
>>821575
>a device marketed as a stabilizing brace effectively turns a pistol into a short-barreled rifle
explain to a noguns
are people putting stocks on pistols or something?
>>
>>821842
>On top of that Democrats working with Republicans is why shit sucks. Republicans like Trump dont work with Democrats.
Exactly this. Moscow Mitch and the Orange Fool Russian Puppet never once attempted to work with Dems - not even once. Biden learned from Obama's fuckups where he attempted to negotiate with Repugnicons which is why we ended up with ACA instead of Medicare for all. He should have just steamrolled the Repugnicon obstructors when he had the chance. Biden learned that lesson well and won't be repeating the same mistake. #EndFilibusterNow!
>>
>>821939
Bonnie and Clyde used to shoot people with sawn off shotguns and there was an execution of gang members with a tommy gun in the 1930s so FDR, the tyrannical piece of shit he was, made the first federal gun law called the NFA. It made it so in order to have certain guns you needed to pay a $200 tax stamp, (which was like $4,000 in today's money, but the stamp never changed with inflation) to make it so the law wouldn't affect the rich, but fuck the poor. It got upheld because of some kangaroo court shenanigans, including purposely picking a case where they knew the pro gun side would jump bail so only the anti gunners would argue and the FDR judges who would later go on to say you can put Asians in concentration camps based on their race.
The results of the thing were that the law was fine because the second amendment only protected weapons of war and that sawn off shotguns weren't used by any military. Which makes no sense for why machine guns, suppressors, destructive devices, and short barreled rifles are on the list but whatever.

Flash forward to today and rifles are shorter than ever due to better powders and projectiles. The US's standard rifle has a 14.5 inch barrel which would be an NFA regulated short barreled rifle. ATF also have stupid rules for what is a rifle and what is a pistol. Some dude invents a device to make it easier for someone with one arm to shoot an AR pistol. People see this and that it looks like a stock. People put this on actual handguns and what would be short barreled rifles that don't have stocks (see the retarded ATF definition of what is a rifle) to get around federal short barreled rifle laws because they are cumbersome and retarded.
>>821949
Why would the GOP work with a group that was crying Trump wasn't legitimate and wants to deny people their human rights?
>#EndFilibusterNow!
If that happens it is time to dissolve the union, rather than live under a biden dictatorship single party state.
>>
>>821939
>explain to a noguns
>are people putting stocks on pistols or something?
No. The ATF is a retarded agency, run by retards, who make retarded policies. They're inventing new problems to make excuses for a power grab.
>>
>>821939
An AR without a stock is considered a pistol. Since it is a pistol it can have a barrel shorter than 16" without violating the NFA. Years ago a company created a "stabilizing brace" (search for images) so people could more easily shoot one single handed. However you could also use it like a stock. They asked the ATF and the ATF said it is not a stock, so now there are millions of "Not-short-barreled-rifles" in the wild without tax stamps or registration.
>>
>>821575
>Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms.
Dementia Joe just announced this and called it the AFT several times.
>>
>>822197
Well that's good. It's something for thegatewaypundit and thedailycaller to hammer for the next month or two. Before this they were going to hammer stories about gas prices.
>>
>>822197
i hope the AFT can help recover Trump's lost F-52s
>>
>>821544

If you have a selective service number you're part of the well-regulated militia.
>>
>>822203
No those are full of Was it Joe that shit in the whitehouse and they blamed it on the dogs?
>>
>>822215
He did shit on the floor of the whitehouse
>>822203
It is his fault gas prices went up
>>
>>822203
Well his first executive order put 60,000 people out of good paying jobs AND ensured Warren Buffet could make a killing on hauling oil, so putting the blame on Biden for higher gas prices isn’t out of line.
>>
>>822210
If you have a selective service number you're part of the well-regulated militia.
I like your thinking!
>>
>>822219
Are you talking about Keystone? That was @ 8000 temp jerbs for 6 months, 2000 jerbs for 6 more months and 75 full time employees after that, lol! Get back to me when Biden ignominiously slimes out of office with 12+ million more unemployed than when he took office like your Dear Leader.
>>
>muh gas prices
>muh guns
are you people able to chew gum and walk at the same time?
>>
>>822222
Gun nutzi threads need to die.
Also QUINTS
>>
>>822333
Infringement legislation needs to stop
>>
>>822343
The only thing you've accomplished is pushing people away with how fucking unhinged you are. You're actually hurting your own cause with your constant lunacy.
>>
>>822346
Millions of new gun owners is pushing people away?
>>
>>822346
I think that you might have me confused with someone else
>>
>>822349
Yes, unironically. Firstly, a disproportionate amount of those new gun owners are minorities and women. Secondly, I'd be willing to bet any amount of money that all of these brand new gun owners would probably put their hands up and back away the second the schizo-poster who throws up all of these threads starts talking about how democrats all want gun control because they want to lock them in nationwide death camps. I'd say the majority of the new gun owners bought their firearms for home/self defense, not in preparation to gun down neo-lib gun confiscation/death camp squads. You won't find a lot of new comrades willing to join your gun-cult in that group of people, anon.
>>
>>822290
>are you people able to chew gum and walk at the same time?
Let our people know when your people can decide what gender they identify as.
>>
>>822359
>majority of the new gun owners bought their firearms for home/self defense
They bought them because they saw 10 months of “mostly peaceful, but fiery” “protests” disguised as looting and assault and arson. Innocent people trying to come home from their job and getting stopped on the streets, highways and interstates and having chunks of concrete thrown through the windshield. Because the shithole mayors had the police stand down and let them burn city blocks and assault others as well as the police. They bought a gun because it they knew if they called the police to respond to a home invasion, they would be on there own.
>>
>>822372
They still aren't joining your gun cult anon, where you value the ability to own rifles you'll never use over human lives.
>>
>>822375
How many died in blm antifa mostly peaceful protest? I’m not in a cult and don’t have a marxist organizations sign in my yard either
>>
>>822372
>They bought them because they saw 10 months of “mostly peaceful, but fiery” “protests” disguised as looting and assault and arson.
This narrative you're spinning is delusional. Statistics consistently show that the majority of the U.S. supports BLM and the dipshit conservatives who are afraid of ANTIFA super soldiers coming to their bumfuck town to burn down their Applebee's already own guns. You're living in an alternate reality, anon.

>Innocent people trying to come home from their job and getting stopped on the streets, highways and interstates and having chunks of concrete thrown through the windshield.
Not interested in your fear mongering, anecdote andy bullshit. Either you have a good argument or you don't. This isn't FOX News. I'm not some soft-brained retiree. Your lazy attempts at emotional appeals are transparent as fuck.

>They bought a gun because it they knew if they called the police to respond to a home invasion, they would be on there own.

>https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/gun-sales-first-time-buyers-skyrocket-amid-fears-bloody-election-n1243510

>That market is widening this year to include a new rush of first-time buyers, including many women, minorities and politically liberal buyers who once would not have considered gun ownership, according to Reuters interviews with more than a dozen industry experts, academics and gun store owners.

You're actually detached from reality. I have a hard time deciding whether you actually believe the bullshit fan-fiction you dream up to justify your gun cult or if you're actually just pretending to be mentally ill for the memes.

>>822381
You are 100% in a cult. Your issue is that your cult is deeply unpopular, not that it doesn't exist.
>>
>>821376
* DO NOT RESPOND TO GUN NUTZI THREADS*
* DO NOT ENGAGE WITH GUN NUTZI POSTER *
* BY REPLYING YOU ARE COMPLICIT IN POLLUTING /NEWS/ *
* SAGE GUN NUTZI THREADS *

Gtfo you "guns are a human right" (PS: "I don't care about actual human rights") nutjob. GTFO for good.
>>
>>822389
So you deny any of those things happening in Seattle,Portland, LA, SF, FNYC, Chicago,St Louis etc etc etc. Happened? Even when CNN came on with the “mostly peaceful but fiery” desperate attempt to spin the violence. Half a billion dollars damage in Minneapolis alone!!! You’re not a soft brained retiree, no siree. You’re obviously woke.
>>
>>822389
>ANTIFA super soldiers
Is this what you call the child molester, convicted robber and domestic assaulter? I’ll take my chances.
>>
>>822389
>Your issue is that your cult is deeply unpopular
Oh I didn’t realize this was the moron that thinks 36% is a majority.
>>
>>822287

I don't know if you're even human. You're blaming Trump for a global pandemic that has caused global economic devastation. Every country lost jobs or contracted, apart from (on paper, from their numbers) the totalitarian police state China. Which would mean that you believe complete abdication of freedom for security.

Are you trolling? Are we going to compare and contrast every country in relation to what the pandemic did?

Who are you, really?
>>
>>822428
He's blaming Trump because he knowingly made shit worse for the US. A lot of deaths here then and now could've been prevented if he'd just fucking listened to doctors instead of yelling about how bad masks are and how it would totally go away in a few weeks.
>>
>>822448

Ah, so we're the only country significantly effected by COVID. State governments don't have their own health departments, and the HHS is responsible for municipal policy.

Go fuck yourself with a rake you disingenuous tool. What proof do you have anything would be significantly different had we had some sort of federal mask mandate and shut everything down? Other countries produce variants and from Brazil to Britain things have been shit. Even the Nordic countries are suffering.

But even then, there is a principle that not everything is about absolute numbers. If a president makes edicts relating to mask wearing and businesses instead of deferring to local governments, do yo not see an issue with that? At all? You won't dare to even dip your toe into acknowledging unintended (but predictable) consequences?
>>
>>822454
20% of the death rate.
>>
>>822456

You address nothing.

There is a blame on Trump that miraculously doesn't extend to state and local governments who could have acted on their own.

Even then, if you trust the numbers China puts out, do you find desirable their methods?

You're like an Alien to me, your values are foreign and incompatible with mine. A society cannot exist with such divisions. I can literally not understand you nor your motivations.
>>
>>822460
Alright, you want me to address shit?

We had a fucking PLAYBOOK for this shit, for this exact scenario. And guess what? Trump fucking ignored it. He ignored scientists warning him the virus would get worse, he ignored proof of it getting worse, he even ignored actual things that could prevent spread simply because the scientists suggesting it weren't 100% behind it. And guess what? As a result, the states didn't have the federal support needed because he fucked up the response so badly. This shit is a world wide event and he couldn't even bother suggesting "Hey, maybe we should cut down on things so it doesn't spread here like it is everywhere else."

And his cult of a base just ate that shit up, deluding themselves so hard they created super spreader events. It's not that the state governments did nothing, it's that Trump, the guy who could coordinate efforts across the nation he was supposed to be serving, did fucking NOTHING but make the situation worse and breed conspiracy among his own base, which is haunting us to this fucking day as now there's a whole sub breed of people who won't even accept the vaccine because Trump initially told them against it, even though he fucking took it in secret. He knew exact what was going on and did jack shit until it was too late despite having all the power in the world to do so.

Would we have no infections? Fuck no. Would it have reached the point where there was a daily death toll comparable to fucking 9/11 had he done his goddamn job? Also fuck no.

He had a chance to help protect his nation and he failed on every regard. He didn't have any methods other then denial and using the virus to sling political mud against people making him (rightfully) look bad, and look where that fucking got us.
>>
>>822466
The constitution is more important than your life. If you do not believe this, move to a dictatorship. Dictatorships have lockdowns too, strict ones, and it's actually legal to do lockdowns in dictatorships.
>>
>>822466

"Federal support" like what? What we're seeing now with huge printing of money? The strategic supply was giving PPE out to hospitals, and there was a global shortage in any case. Also, medical supplies are a state responsibility, given differences in risk (natural disasters, climate, etc are different in Louisiana and Wyoming). Federal coordination is not make or break.

Specifics are important. You can summarize what you said with: "he didn't follow the science", and it has the same content and intent. Useless.

I'd like you to say a definitive statement. "If Trump would have mandated ventilator construction by federal contractors, there would have been a 20% decrease in ICU fatality".

I know you have no specifics because it doesn't interest you, only "orange man bad, here are some broad strokes why".
>>
>>822469
You point this out but guess what, he still did fuck all. Amazing how you can be considered a world leader but that apparently means jack shit in terms of actually helping your country.

He could've done literally fucking anything. A mask mandate, CDC testing, hell, just shutting the fuck up for once and not telling people "Fauci is full of shit and masks don't work and the virus is just a little flu that'll be gone in a week".
>>
>>822470

You have nothing. You don't view events holistically, only through a very narrow lens that you don't dare widen.

If you are going to have the opinion you have to condemn an action or person, at least have some skin in the game and venture to see what could have been done and the actual effect.

A nationwide mask mandate overruling states and municipalities? CDC testing? What does that even mean? The tests were myriad at the beginning of the pandemic, and labs who handled volume 100 times greater than whatever passes though the much smaller CDC labs (e.g. quest diagnostics, lab Corp, etc) were overwhelmed. PCR machines are only so many and can only run so fast. Antibody testing shows up too late to prevent asymptomatic spread.

We're still in the pandemic too if you haven't noticed. Writing about definitive success of other countries should be done when we're out of it.

This discourse is very superficial. You offer nothing, and will listen to nothing I say in return. I was fishing for maybe a new perspective from your side, and you massively disappoint.
>>
>>822471
What's your perspective? Can you say what Trump actually did right, because otherwise it seems like you would rather have "Respect muh states rights" then not having a fucking pandemic ravage the nation and kill 550k and counting.
>>
>>822472

I'm glad I was able to convery that! Yes, I am a firm believer in "muh states rights". Let the states try different approaches, and if one really works the other 49 will follow. I love my country's founding principles, unlike you, and yes some things are mort important than being alive or dead.

In the abstract, freedom is worth dying for. Some don't believe that, and others do. I know which camp I am and you are.

There's nothing to debate on that, either. If you would own being a fan of centralized dictatorships, I can own being a fan of decentralized governance.

The only issue is that we cannot coexist by definition. No words will bridge the gap between our ideologies, as our desirable outcomes are not compatible. The only way to definitely solve our issues is through old fashioned violence, which is why you want to disarm me and I don't want to give up my arms.

Note on this I'm not saying you are wrong, or even evil or bad. But your ideal world is a nightmare to me, and I'd wager vice versa.
>>
>>822473
Freedom means nothing if everyone's dead anon. I'd rather be free to live then free to die.
>>
>>822476
>if everyone's dead
it's well known that the IFR of COVID-19 is 100%
>>
>>822476

So you're saying the mortality rate exceeds what you are comfortable with and are willing to give up freedom. That's subjective. You can grasp that number varies from person to person, I hope.

But you just said "everyone is dead". So in your opinion, the objective evidence says that without human intervention COVID would wipe out humanity? You know the actual mortality rate isn't anywhere near SARS or MERS right? Yes, it is deadly. No, it isn't the flu, its an order of magnitude worse. But cataclysmic? Apocalyptic?
>>
>>822476

As a parting shot before I go to bed, it galls me that you people always have to be right. Your last reply is some sort of vain effort to show you have some sort of moral grounding where you don't. You can't accept that people can be different, which is why your systems will always eventually fail. At least they would without an orwellian surveillance apparatus in your dystopian hellworld.
>>
>>822476
Freedom is not what the left seeks. If the left doesn’t like something, it desires that no one should be able to have it. Look at California, representatives have gone on record saying “we need to control every aspect of our constituents lives, because we know what is right for them”.
>>
>>822626
>CA: Literally 5th largest economy in the world
>Red states who leech off of CA Fed tax dollars: B-but them Californians is dagnabbed commie socialists, ok?
The failing red state tears of jealousy are muy delicioso!
>>
>>822395
>(PS: "I don't care about actual human rights")
What are actual human rights? And do not use the UN as an example. Before you even start, you do not have a human right to a job, free healthcare or free education.

Now with that out of the way, what are human rights?
>>
>>822630
>CA's billions from hollywood and silicon valley justifies their orwellian practices.
>Posts this hot opinion in a thread about gun control
>>
>>822630
Ah yes, there's the rub
Bow and worship the almighty dollar, because let's be honest, that's what democrats want is money and power
Ignore the fact that historically blue areas such as ca, ny, and dc have a gini comparable to botswana, namibia or haiti, making them in reality inequitable hellholes
Ignore the fact that these areas have literal epidemics of homelessness and people dying on the streets for lack of shelter
Praise be the progressive dollar!
>>
>>822644
>ITT: far right dipshits pretend to know what the word Orwellian means
>>
>>822648
>Ignore the fact that historically blue areas such as ca, ny, and dc have a gini comparable to botswana, namibia or haiti, making them in reality inequitable hellholes
This issue happens in literally every major city in every industrialized nation, anon. You know which cities have these issues the least? Cities with the most robust welfare programs. If your argument is that Democrats don't invest enough into public assistance then I whole-heartedly agree. Let's fire up medicare for all, planned parenthood and after school programs and get these cities fixed.

>Ignore the fact that these areas have literal epidemics of homelessness and people dying on the streets for lack of shelter
Again, have you ever been to a city before? I'm also curious - if democrats are to blame for all of the problems that tend to occur most frequently in every major metropolitan area on the planet then what is your alternative? Is it conservative policies? The ones who want to defund and dismantle every public assistance program in the country and force everyone into a bootstrap economy where if they can't afford housing or healthcare they just die? If democrats are bad because they enable homelessness then how would conservatives be any better? And if your argument isn't that conservatives would be better then what is your argument?
>>
>>822653
Fantastic argument.
>>
>>822659
>This issue happens in literally every major city in every industrialized nation
Stop lying
https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings
These blue areas are within the top 10 worst equitable, and if you examine by country none of the worst ones are big countries.
Your demonstrably wrong and your a porky apologist
There is no reason that commerce means everyone needs to be homeless and dying in the streets like California

Go away shill
>>
>>822630
>>CA: Literally 5th largest economy in the world
CA; Running an estimated $54 billion dollar deficit.

Its Department of Finance recently estimated that the Golden State could face a $54 billion shortfall in the fiscal year beginning July 1, which surely must be the largest deficit any state has ever accumulated, surpassing the $40 billion hole that nearly swallowed Sacramento in 2008. Still, though Governor Gavin Newsom said last weekend that the staggering deficit was “a direct result of Covid-19,” that’s clearly not true. Critics have long warned that the state’s tax base is volatile, being increasingly reliant on wealthy residents and vulnerable to sharp contraction in the next recession. Combine that with California’s spending spree—including expenditures to fix problems that the state’s own bad policies have worsened—and the swing from prosperity to penury isn’t hard to understand.
It’s no exaggeration to say that California—with its 13.3 percent personal income-tax rate, the highest of any state.
I’ll take fiscal responsibility thank you.
>>
>>822660
All you're doing is whining about "the left". There isn't anything to argue against.
>>
>>822666
Thanks, Ronald Reagan.
>>
>>822659
>Again, have you ever been to a city before? I'm also curious - if democrats are to blame for all of the problems that tend to occur most frequently in every major metropolitan area on the planet then what is your alternative?
Hey retard, learn to read.
It's american progressivism that's the issue I never mentioned democrats I mentioned progressives. Your policies claim to help people but they're designed to put people on benefits and make it hard to get off public assistance... In your glorious California you will lose your food stamps if you go to school because you are no longer "looking for a job 8 hours a day", a clause that literally means you can sit at home and do nothing you just can't get educated if you're on food stamps because they will be taken away
>Again, have you ever been to a city before
Obviously more than you.
I was born and raised in California lived around much of the East coast and am currently back in California where I'm surrounded by a homelessness epidemic.

Go back to your shill hut and stop talking about things your wrong about
>>
>>822670
>It's american progressivism that's the issue I never mentioned democrats I mentioned progressives.
You said "historically blue areas" dipshit. How does that not mean Democrats?

>Your policies claim to help people but they're designed to put people on benefits and make it hard to get off public assistance... In your glorious California you will lose your food stamps if you go to school because you are no longer "looking for a job 8 hours a day", a clause that literally means you can sit at home and do nothing you just can't get educated if you're on food stamps because they will be taken away
Learn to read, dipshit. I already said if your argument is that Democrats don't invest enough into public assistance than I agree.

>I was born and raised in California lived around much of the East coast and am currently back in California where I'm surrounded by a homelessness epidemic.
Then how is it that you're so fucking uneducated on this topic?
>>
>>822663
The reading comprehension in on this board today are dogshit. My statement was that income inequality and housing inequality happens in every major city in every industrialized nation. Not only did the list you cited state countries, not cities, 80% of the countries cited aren't even fully industrialized. Of course third world countries are going to have high rates of income inequality.

>Your demonstrably wrong and your a porky apologist
You have a sub-human understanding of socioeconomics.

>There is no reason that commerce means everyone needs to be homeless and dying in the streets like California
True. Per my last post which you obviously didn't read - lets fire up medicare for all, planned parenthood, after school programs and jobs programs and get the cities fixed.
>>
>>822667
>Thanks, Ronald Reagan.
So the state of CA runs HUGE debts this year and last year, but you blame it on a Governor from 1967-75 wtf?
>>
>>822290
Those are 2 of the biggest issues in the USA along with taxes and deporting illegals.
>>822346
>>822359
>>822375
>>822389
t. Thomas Gage
In 2020 1 in every 3 guns purchased went to first time buyers and over 1% of people eligible to buy a gun in the state bought their first gun in 2020. Stay bad Nigel.
>>822395
you mad as shit Nigel.
>>822476
You sound like a fascist
>>
>>822696
The debt started in the late 1960s. The debt ALWAYS starts with a republican administration. It doesn't matter if it's at the state, local, or national level.
>>
>>822750
>t. Thomas Gage
Get a new meme, schizo-poster.
>>
>>822764
Why? I'll stop using Thomas Gage when you stop being a yurofag bitching about US gun laws.
>>
>>822781
This is why you're losing.
>>
>>822783
Losing? 20 states have enacted constitutional carry, Biden can't even get 50 dems in the senate to support his bullshit, I've successfully harassed my congressman to the point he didn't put his name on a letter demanding an awb, half the country has a 2a sanctuary law on the books at the state, county, or local level, and we keep breaking records of gun sales and new gun owners month after month.
>>
>>822781
>Why?
Because everyone sees what a vapid, mentally ill virtue signaler you are and anyone who would potentially be on your side about second amendment issues are immediately driven away by how irrational and uneducated you are about every issue you claim to care about. Every time you go on another 80 post schizo gun-nut rant you drive that many people further away from your cause. If you stand outside of a Subway frothing at the mouth, covered in shit, helicoptering your flacid dick, screaming at pedestrians about how Subway is the best restaurant and all Democrats are reptilian child molesters who want to destroy Subways those people will most likely not want to enter the Subway. This is you. This is what you do to gun rights. Nobody who meaningfully gives a shit about 2A will want a lunatic like you associated with the movement.
>>
>>822789
t. Thomas Gage
>>
>>821376
More Guns, Less Crime is a book by John Lott that says violent crime rates go down when states pass "shall issue" concealed carry laws. He presents the results of his statistical analysis of crime data for every county in the United States during 29 years from 1977 to 2005. Each edition of the book was refereed by the University of Chicago Press. The book examines city, county and state level data from the entire United States and measures the impact of 13 different types of gun control laws on crime rates. The book expands on an earlier study published in 1997 by Lott and his co-author David Mustard in The Journal of Legal Studies[1] and by Lott and his co-author John Whitley in The Journal of Law and Economics, October 2001
>>
>>822789
>helicoptering your flacid dick, screaming at pedestrians
I know you’re exaggerating for illustration purposes, but the progressives and the LGBTQLMNOP crowd ACTUALLY does this kind of crap in their pride parades. I don’t really care what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedroom, but Main Street USA is not the place for it.
>>
>>822804
Strange, every law enforcement agency opposes permitless carry since it increases crime. I'll trust the cops who deal with it daily over an NRA shill paid to spew death cult nonsense.
>>
>>822787
Good! Then maybe you can stop pissing and shitting up the board with 20 death cult gun nut threads/day because you're scared shitless you might become "well regulated like the Founding Fathers intended. Capisce?
>>
>>822812
Car jackings and mugging and home invasions tend to go down when the victim is armed and gives the criminal a dose of lead. They tend to go up in “gun free zones” as the criminal doesn’t like being shot. Even the lowest IQ criminal seems to understand this.
Also, some cops want to be the only ones with guns
>>
>>821498
>because most murders done in the USA are done by black men.
Man, it's always a treat to see people prove their own ignorance.
Lemme save you the trouble cause everyone knows cucks like you don't read unless the words say "nigger bad."
When you look at ONLY murders in 2019, 46% are by whites, and 51% by blacks. That's a difference of about 600 deaths. Nothing to scoff at, but when both races kill an almost equal amount, idk how you can slightly justify anything you've said in this thread about blacks. Oh but don't look at the other crime statistics,.they definitely don't show that whites commit the most crime overall by a wide margin. Sorry your wife's boyfriend is black, I'm sure it must sting when you buy peanut butter for them. Go back to Dixie you cousinfuckin bootlicker
https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2&selYrs=2019&rdoGroups=3&rdoData=rp
>>
>>821848
Stop watching newsmax, your brain will thank you
>>
>>821953
Maybe don't watch newsmax and binge youtube videos on the history of the ATF? Unless you like living in Wonderland, where biden is a mean dictator and the government is socialist dumpster. Come back to the real world with the rest of us.
>>
>>822676
>lets fire up medicare for all, planned parenthood, after school programs and jobs programs and get the cities fixed.
As an epileptic, and someone who's watched two different people have their lives ruined by medical debt, I wholeheartedly say, based.
>>
>>822815
>Car jackings and mugging and home invasions tend to go down when the victim is armed and gives the criminal a dose of lead.
Not really. The data is pretty scant on whether or not having a firearm results in more positive outcomes and there's actually a lot of data out there to support the claim that being armed actually increases your chance of injury. Here's a study on home invasions which finds that only 1.5% of people actually discharged firearms during a home invasion and that the odds of being injured in a home invasion were not significantly impacted by the method of resistance. The problem with people like you is that you use intuition instead of data to form your opinion about firearms. A lot of data on the matter is actually pretty counterintuitive.
>https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/388816

>They tend to go up in “gun free zones” as the criminal doesn’t like being shot

Here's a study which finds no evidence that gun free zones increase the likelihood of violent crime involving a firearm. Admittedly, the study also finds that gun free zones don't meaningfully decrease gun violence either. Try researching your opinions, anon. You'll come off as less of a dumb fuck.

>https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/gun-free-zones.html
>>
>>822816
All your saying in this post is that you admit he's technically right and you don't understand the implications of this number with their demographic accounting for roughly 13% or 1/8th of the population
>>
>> However, another analysis focused on mass public shootings between 1998 and 2018 and reported that 97.8 percent of incidents took place in gun-free zones (Crime Prevention Research Center, 2018a).
Read your own cited sources and you won’t sound like such an arrogant dumbfucking ass.
>>
>>822842
>13% or 1/8th of the population
The problem isn’t really with 13%. Most violent crime is committed by men. So we’re at say 7% if you cut women out. Little kids and 80 year old great grandparents aren’t committing them either. So focus on on 13-40 year olds and In reality, you have probably 1-2% of the us population responsible for 50% but it’s now racist to discuss these statistics.
>>
>>822812
>permitless
>shall issue
We all know you don't have a clue about firearms, but you don't have to keep showing off your ignorance.

>>822816
>51% is not really most, it's just slightly more than half
>if 51% of congress supports something that means 90% of americans support it

>>822824
The study doesn't say how many of the victims had a firearm in the home. It could be that 100% of firearms owners used their firearm. Also it's from a 3 month period in Atlanta in 1994.
>gun free zones
Would you rather be able to defend yourself in a public place or not?
>>
why didn't gun nuts just stop biden from taking office knowing he'd take away their guns?
>>
>>822856
Because for 4 years we had Russia Collusion, Ukraine gate, and widespread vote fraud. Also Orange man baaaad!
>>
>>822846
>The problem isn’t really with 13%. Most violent crime is committed by men. So we’re at say 7% if you cut women out. Little kids and 80 year old great grandparents aren’t committing them either. So focus on on 13-40 year olds and In reality, you have probably 1-2% of the us population responsible for 50% but it’s now racist to discuss these statistics.
So.
Funny fact.
Stockton, CA determined something white similar.
The city determined that the vast majority of violent crime is performed by a very small number of individuals repeating offenses.
Stockton actually instituted a program to pay the small number of criminals to not commit crimes.
Basically, they got free gibsmedats for being on kinda like a voluntary probation thing, but I'm not actually sure of the details about how strict this watch program was

Anyways, I heard them instituting the program maybe 2 years ago I haven't heard of the results.
I remember a lot of people were outraged at basically the city paying criminals because they were committing too many crimes, where is the other half thought it would be a good way to stop people from committing crimes
Idk man. Probably a quick Google search could figure out the results... Or if there's no results on it, only the articles about how they're starting the program 2 years ago then that means it didn't work out well
>>
>>822676
>80% of the countries cited aren't even fully industrialized.
So you agree that these unindustrialized nations have income inequality comparable to democrat regime dictatorships of california, new York, and dc.
Your bad at this
>>
>>822856
>why didn't gun nuts just stop biden from taking office knowing he'd take away their guns?
Because they followed the law and didn't bring any guns to DC when they protested
>>
>>822856
you mean the capitol insurrection of unarmed protestors? Yeah, sorry gramps, didnt have a molotov and bricks to burn the place down to call it a peaceful protest. Just had....nothing.
>>
>>822879
>>822892
biden was in delaware at the time and congress has no power to overturn election results anyway.
>>
>>822871
> Russia Collusion,
This actually happened.
>Ukraine gate
This also actually happened.
>and widespread vote fraud
This did not happen.
>Also Orange man baaaad!
The man who smears orange paint on his face every morning like a sad clown was actually exactly as bad as they said he was.
>>
>>822989
And all those protests were mostly peaceful. Don’t believe everything cnn says
>>
>>821376
>anti gun royal decrees tomorrow

Can't wait.
>>
>>823000
>And all those protests were mostly peaceful.
This actually happened. ACLED data reviewed 7,750 demonstrations and found that less than 7% reported violence or unrest of any kind. BTFO'd again, cultist.
>>
>>823016
Not that anon you're talking to. It's worth mentioning those less than 7% of violent protesters caused billions in damage. Minneapolis alone asked for $500 million to cover the cost (which your side insists was only an autozone or a couple of blocks that got smashed).
>>
>>823016
APOOP data reviewed 1000022969 demonstrations and found that you are 100% a faggot, tranny.
>>
>>821403
It's almost as if they weren't trying to execute an insurrection..
Nah, that couldn't possibly be it. The more reasonable explanation is clearly just that they were all too dumb to do it properly.
>>
>>823016
You should probably look at how they came up with that statistic friend. Methodology makes all the difference when you're pursuing a narrative.
>>
>>821403
you're full of shit
>>
>>823016
what counts as a demonstration in that study?
>>
>>822989
tell me a single president in the last 20 years that has not exploited their position for gain
>>
>>823078
Nice white supremacist cope. Now when you understand basic algebra operations, maybe you can pretend you understand Calculus based statistics instead of believing it's some kind of mysterious magic you can use to summon evil or good forces at will.
>>
>>823128
show him the fucking study anon. All he is asking is how the study was taken as with the political situation it was taken in bias is hard to avoid. Its been shown before with school shooting propaganda.
>>
>>823132
I have to do Bart's homework now? He can look up the fucking study just as well as I can, but he wouldn't understand the statistical methodology presented so he won't.
>>
>>823154
>but he wouldn't understand the statistical methodology presented so he won't.
Kind of like how you don't, so you aren't?

Post that link to your source, since you cited it, homeslice.
>>
>>823155
>>823154
Data comes from ACLED who define a protest as "are non-violent demonstrations, involving typically unorganized action by members of society" This defines a protest as more than 1 person demonstrating their personal opinion. They also stated that out of 10000 ish protests in the USA 7750 were linked to BLM/George Floyd. However from this number only 7% were violent. The reason I am interested is because of this loose definition on a protest. You can have a hundred 20-30 man protests all across the USA and one big fuck off 3000 man protest and whilst statistically 1% of the protests were violent, 50% of the people protesting assuming all protests were separate were involved with violent acts.
>>
>>823155
https://acleddata.com/2020/08/31/us-crisis-monitor-releases-full-data-for-summer-2020/
I got u
>>
>>823161
I didn't ask for your explanation of the data, I asked for a link to the data you're using. Since you're, allegedly at least, accessing it yourself, you can just post the link you're using. (Provided it's not behind a paywall, which definitely would not help your bad faith arguments.)

It takes more energy to type all of that out and argue about it, than it does for you to just post the link.
>>
>>823166
Data is here but it helps to understand how it is collected
https://acleddata.com/2020/08/31/us-crisis-monitor-releases-full-data-for-summer-2020/
>>
>>823168
>>823161
Your conjecture about the methodology is interesting and, admittedly, may have some validity. However, its pretty irrelevant to the claim. The popular right-wing claim addressed earlier in the thread is to exaggerate the amount of violence that occurred during the protests and claim that CNN is lying about protests being mostly peaceful. Even if we take your proposed methodology flaw into account, the idea that there could be enough of a 20 man to 3000 man protest imbalance to skew the numbers 93 to 7 is mathematically dubious at best and empirically illogical at worst. The data provides pretty comprehensive proof that most of the protests were in fact peaceful. If anyone has an actual critique of their methodology that isn't a wild guess then I'd be open to hearing it but so far its just been a bunch of /pol/ chud screeching.
>>
>>823164
Finally.

Looking at this I don't understand how this is supposed to debunk the notion that there weren't large protests that turned violent. Like another anon pointed out, if you have a hundred of 20-30 person protests that aren't violent and one big 3000 violent-person protest where half a city burns, presenting data using # of protests is intellectually dishonest. Plus, you can look and see that the "7%" of violent protests occured in CA, NY, IL, and FL. Aka, where some of the biggest protests occured. Meaning the protests that represented the most protestors were in fact violent violent.

Moreover, like with crime in general, it's not random people who've never committed crime before suddenly turning to crime. it's people who have been doing this for a long time continuing to do it. Take a look at the rap sheet of any given person who gets arrested at one of these protests, especially black bloc and antifa types. For example, the same people who staged the violent 2017 Berkley-nacht protests were at the violent BLM protests in CA.
>>
>>823029
>It's worth mentioning those less than 7% of violent protesters caused billions in damage.
It isn't worth mentioning. It has nothing to do with the original claim and is just a pretty transparent attempt to pivot and bring up other bad things about the protests because you lost on the "mostly violent" point.

>>823078
>Methodology makes all the difference when you're pursuing a narrative.
Sure. If you have a critique of the methodology then lets hear it.
>>
>>823173
>the idea that there could be enough of a 20 man to 3000 man protest imbalance to skew the numbers 93 to 7 is mathematically dubious at best and empirically illogical at worst.
It only appears this way if you're trying to obfuscate the data by manipulating the method in which it is presented.

Using the other anon's example again, you have 6,000 protestors. 3000 go to smaller 20-30 man protests that do not get violent. The other 3,000 attend one large one where they fuck up whole city blocks. While yes, there were more non-violent protests than violent ones, 50% of protestors were still engaged in violent behavior. Do you understand how omitting this information can be obfuscative?
>>
>>823176
>Looking at this I don't understand how this is supposed to debunk the notion that there weren't large protests that turned violent.
That was not the claim. You're strawmanning. The claim that started this whole thing off was an anon clearly implying that CNN was lying when they said most of the protests were peaceful. The data shows that most of the protests were peaceful. Nowhere in the thread did anyone state that there weren't protests that turned violent.

>Like another anon pointed out, if you have a hundred of 20-30 person protests that aren't violent and one big 3000 violent-person protest where half a city burns, presenting data using # of protests is intellectually dishonest.
Its not. The fact that violence is more likely to happen at larger protests is irrelevant to the fact that most of the them were peaceful. Its also complete conjecture on your part because this flaw in your methodology you're bring up is a wild guess. You haven't looked at the data and how many smaller protests were violent in comparison to larger ones. You have no factual basis for your critique you've just taken a hypothetical methodology flaw and run with it without any proof.

>Meaning the protests that represented the most protestors were in fact violent violent.
I wouldn't be surprised if the bigger the protest the more likely violence would occur. Firstly, you would need the data to support that and secondly it would need to be relevant to the claim. It isn't.

>Take a look at the rap sheet of any given person who gets arrested at one of these protests, especially black bloc and antifa types
More conjecture. You have zero data on the rap sheet or criminal history of people involved in the protests. You're grasping at straws because the data disagrees with your narrative.

>For example, the same people who staged the violent 2017 Berkley-nacht protests were at the violent BLM protests in CA.
Irrelevant pivot. Has nothing to do with the conversation.
>>
>>823177
>It isn't worth mentioning.
It is, these protests were in CA, NY, IL, and FL. These are some of the largest cities in the US (with some of the highest crime rates), were where some of the largest, and subsequently most violent protests occured.

>It has nothing to do with the original claim
What was the original claim exactly, that most BLM protestors were violent or that BLM protests as a concept were violent?
>>
>>823177
tfw according to the study the police responded with violence 5% of the time but protesters were violent 7% of the time
>>
>>823179
>It only appears this way if you're trying to obfuscate the data by manipulating the method in which it is presented.
But you don't have any proof of this though.


>Do you understand how omitting this information can be obfuscative?
But you have absolutely zero evidence that this data exists or that it was omitted. You're just making hypothetical guesses about how the data could be wrong without any evidence.
>>
>>823180
>you have no factual basis for your critique you've just taken a hypothetical methodology flaw and run with it without any proof.
If they provided the data, I would use the data. I have observed a flaw in how they define a political gathering of people, specifying more than one individual, as a protest
>>
>>823181
>It is, these protests were in CA, NY, IL, and FL.
It isn't. It has nothing to do with the conversation. Its a pivot to try to paint the protests in a negative light because you lost on the first point.

>What was the original claim exactly, that most BLM protestors were violent or that BLM protests as a concept were violent?
The first claim is already disproven by the data. The second claim is a subjective, philosophical debate that also has nothing to do with the data.
>>
>>823184
>I have observed a flaw
Incorrect. You observed a potential flaw based on the violence to protest size ratio. You don't have any information on the size of the protest or how often they were violent in comparison to smaller ones so everything you're critiquing is a wild guess. For the fourth time, you have no evidence to support your claim.
>>
>>823180
>The claim that started this whole thing off was an anon clearly implying that CNN was lying when they said most of the protests were peaceful.
It may have had something to do with the fact that this specific CNN story was done against the backdrop of a city literally on fire from one of the larger BLM protests that were, in fact, not peaceful.

>The data shows that most of the protests were peaceful.
Yet most protestors were not. As discussed, most of these protests were also small.

>Its not.
it is. We all know why this upsets you, but the situation doesn't care about your feelings.
>The fact that violence is more likely to happen at larger protests is irrelevant
No it's not, it means that BLM protests trends towards violence as more people become involved.
>most of the them were peaceful
Most protestors were not. Do you still not understand why you can't simply wish this away because you don't like it?
>Firstly, you would need the data to support that
The ACLED's own data states that the 7% of violent protests happened in, again, CA, NY, IL, and FL. These are where some of the biggest protests occured. Ergo, the data supports that.

>More conjecture. You have zero data on the rap sheet or criminal history of people involved in the protests.
Lmao. Look up any news article involving the arrest of self-identified Antifa or black bloc members and look for previous criminal history. I'll link bomb you if you like.
>>
>>823188
I am stating that the statistics you quote are flawed. The only data I have to prove this is the fact that protester count is tied to population size and the states with the most violent protests had the highest population densities in areas where protests occur. This can be used to infer that greater no. of protesters = greater chance of violence. The study quoted has no way of addressing this flaw in its current state and should not be used to make the claim that "most protesters were peaceful".
>>
>>823193
cont

>Irrelevant pivot. Has nothing to do with the conversation.
Completely relevant, you're just not capable of following this conversation. Most people engaged in violent criminal behavior at protests are statistically more likely to have a history of violent criminal behavior at protests. This is a basic cornerstone of criminology. it's relevant, because it reinforces the narrative that these protests are still largely driven by violent political agitators.

Do you think if the pro-2A protest in Virginia became as violent as say, the BLM protests in Chicago, you'd accept a narrative saying that most pro-2A protests were peaceful? We all know what position you'd be taking on the matter.

>>823185
>It isn't.
It is. I'm not holding your hand while you kick and scream because you dogmatically refuse to stop obfuscating the data.

>The first claim is already disproven by the data.
It isn't.
>The second claim is a subjective
It's literally proven by the data. It's okay to admit you were hoisted by your own petard. It happens.

>>823183
>But you don't have any proof of this though.
Anon, you are the proof. You're literally doing it right now.
>>
>>823188
>You observed a potential flaw based on the violence to protest size ratio.
It's not a flaw, it's data that doesn't support your narrative. I understand why you feel you need to "correct" this, but maybe it's not the data that's the problem- it's your narrative.

>You don't have any information on the size of the protest or how often they were violent in comparison to smaller ones so everything you're critiquing is a wild guess. For the fourth time, you have no evidence to support your claim.
For the fourth time, ACLED's data supports this claim. The 7% of violent protests occured in more populated areas. The largest protests also occured in more populated areas. This is easily researchable on your own with other sources as well. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_George_Floyd_protests_in_the_United_States
>>
>>823193
>It may have had something to do with the fact that this specific CNN story was done against the backdrop of a city literally on fire from one of the larger BLM protests that were, in fact, not peaceful.
Well, I guess you should get your opinions from data then instead of sitting your ass in front of a mainstream news outlet.

>Yet most protestors were not.
You don't have any evidence of that. You're trying to prove a negative. You're making a claim based on the absence of evidence. I don't know how to explain this any simpler.

>it is. We all know why this upsets you, but the situation doesn't care about your feelings.
It isn't. I've already explained why probably 5 times but you appear to have a very poor grasp on how statistical analysis works.

>No it's not, it means that BLM protests trends towards violence as more people become involved.
Conjecture. It could very well mean that all public gatherings trends to have more violence the more people are there. The same could be said for superbowl celebrations. You'd need data to prove that. The situation doesn't care about your feeling of hating BLM. You need proof.

>Most protestors were not.
You have no evidence of that. Its just a guess you're making because you don't like the data.

>Do you still not understand why you can't simply wish this away because you don't like it?
I still understand how data works so, I'm kind of at a loss for how to explain it to you.

>The ACLED's own data states that the 7% of violent protests happened in, again, CA, NY, IL, and FL. These are where some of the biggest protests occurred.
Do you have the numbers on that? Or is this more of your statistical guess work?
>>
>>823194
>I am stating that the statistics you quote are flawed.
No, you're stating that the methodology is flawed based on a potential disproportionate protest size to violence ratio. You have zero data on the protest size to violence ratio.

>The only data I have to prove this is the fact that protester count is tied to population size
Which is a guess because you have no data on that or how disproportionate protestor count is to larger cities in comparison to smaller ones or how many of them were violent.

>This can be used to infer that greater no. of protesters = greater chance of violence
Yes, but your claim is that the number of protests with more protestors were so disproportionately violent and the number of protests with less protests were so disproportionately less violent that it skewed the numbers 93 to 7. For the 15th time - you have zero data to support this. You're making a guess.
>>
>>823198
>Completely relevant, you're just not capable of following this conversation.
Completely irrelevant. We were talking about how many protests were violent and when you got BTFO'd on your incorrect claim you want to pivot to how much damage the protests cost. Look up pivot, anon, because that's what you're desperately trying to do.

>Most people engaged in violent criminal behavior at protests are statistically more likely to have a history of violent criminal behavior at protests.
But you have zero data on the rap sheets or criminal history of even an average amount of people at these protests. More of your wild grasping at straws because the data disagrees with you.

>it's relevant, because it reinforces the narrative that these protests are still largely driven by violent political agitators.
That would be totally relevant if we were having a conversation about the kinds of things that initiate violent riots. We aren't. You're trying to pivot to a million other different topics because you have no defense for the one at hand.

>Do you think if the pro-2A protest in Virginia became as violent as say, the BLM protests in Chicago, you'd accept a narrative saying that most pro-2A protests were peaceful? We all know what position you'd be taking on the matter.
Another wonderful pivot plus a strawman. You're really bad at this, anon.

>I'm not holding your hand while you kick and scream because you dogmatically refuse to stop obfuscating the data.
And I don't have time to teach you statistics 101. You're dogmatically obsessed with hating BLM so you're flailing and pivoting and strawmanning to protect your narrative. The facts disagree with you, sorry anon. I have data to back up my opinions and you have random guess work that you can't even defend without pivoting to completely different topics.
>>
>>823203
Stop sticking to the 7%. This data was seldom collected and that is to nobody's benefit. The point I am trying to make is to claim that major and minor protests are one and the same and using that to claim that 7% of protests are violent whilst honest is a misrepresentation of the nature of these protests.
>>
>>>823016
Armed individuals are also becoming more common at demonstration events; in some cases they are present without engaging in the demonstrations — claiming to ‘keep the peace’ if not openly intimidate perceived ‘enemies’ — while in others they have engaged directly in demonstrations associated with the BLM movement. In total, over 50 such incidents are recorded since late May
this statement just exudes impartiality
>>
>>823202
>>823203
>>823204
>Sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting NONONONONONONONONO

Amazing. It must be nice, having no political opinion opinions of your own, and simply denying anything your opponent states and claiming its antithesis as fact, even if it means doing it to your own data that you presented trying to prove your point.

>You're dogmatically
I like how I said dogmatically, and then you said dogmatically. Telltale sign of a shill: mimicry.
>>
>>823205
>Stop sticking to the 7%
"Despite only accounting for 7% of all protests, they account for over 50% of all protestors"
>>
>>823209
Who's the goddamn shill anymore
>t. person who stated ACLED does not weight for protester count
>>
>>823173
So, surely they counted Portlandia over 100 times in that study, being that antifabois and blmers assaulted police and burned cars and buildings including federal buildings until the dark vans showed up. Every one of these studies get biased to the narrative. Like Everytown for gun safety. They make absolutely no difference between a woman shooting a rapist, than a gang member shooting a gang member over a drug corner. They don’t mention justifiable homocide, they count suicide by gun as gun violence etc, etc. They do this because it fits the narrative that gun violence has risen 50, 200, 800% over an amount of time. Remember the church shooting in Texas? Where gunman kills 2 and a church member took him out, justifiably, while also saving who knows how many, is simply 3 more gun deaths. How many times has a home invader or car jacker fled without a shot even being fired, because good guy had a gun and the criminal realized he was at a disadvantage.
I don’t have a problem with people protesting a cause, if they: keep it peaceful, keep it off of the streets and highways. The media downplayed a lot of these getting out of hand and I think a few bad actors used these as an excuse to out. That being said, I don’t think you can count 30 people protesting on main street small town USA, and what happened in large cities equally. I have a prediction that the Minneapolis and other places will burn again, regardless of the verdict.
>>
>>823180
>The claim that started this whole thing off was an anon clearly implying that CNN was lying
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/cnn-mocked-calling-kenosha-riots-fiery-mostly-peaceful-protests-1527997%3famp=1

Puhleeze. They did, in Kenosha the reporter with multiple fires in the background on the next block. And the caption said “Fiery, but mostly peaceful protests after police shooting”
>>
>>823219
Useless NRA shill.

>>823226
Taken out of context.
>>
>>823227
>NRA shill
no way in hell does someone who supports gun rights align themselves with the NRA. The NRA is a fudd organisation that is Washington all over. This guy is a FPC aligned individual.
By stating that your opponent is an NRA shill you have shown yourself to be a useless neoliberal.
>>
>>823227
>Useless NRA shill.
>>>823226 (You) #
>Taken out of context.
Wrong
Since I was the one who brought it up in the first place, you are wrong again, it was exactly in context and entirely relevant and only proved my initial statement. CNN has gone downhill with all the original management retiring and has time and again either told outright lies, one side of a story, or simply failed to cover the story, because it doesn’t support the progressive/ left narrative. We no longer have journalists, that ask the who what when where how. Journalists like Walter Cronkite were respected by their audience because they told the story and the facts, if it was popular or not. They saw the job as informative and objective, not biased and subjective.
>>
>>822812
>every law enforcement agency opposes permitless carry
who cares?
> since it increases crime.
citation needed
>>822813
You already lost this argument nigel. See Heller. And I'll stop posting gun articles when you stop pushing for gun control. I can't post articles if they don't exist.
>>822816
a.>wants to ban guns and have sanders control his entire life
>calls others bootlickers
B. Numbers for white crime are unreliable because hispanics are often reported as being white for data collecting purposes.
>>822817
>>822819
>don't do any research into an organization that murdered Vicki Weaver and 82 Americans including 25 kids for not reason
cool. Biden has been a piece of shit would be dictator for his entire life. Fucker should be resisted at every turn and his tenure should be nothing but pain and frustration for him.
>>823003
t. Thomas Gage
>>823016
I don't believe any data collected by blm. They were the ones claiming "fiery but peaceful protest"
>>
>>823253
Here you go death cult shill. Permitless carry is correlated with increased homicide rates. Stop celebrating murdering Americans. Or better yet, time travel back to the wild, wild west where you would have been blown away before you turned 21 yo.

>Methods. We compared homicide rates in shall-issue and may-issue states and total, firearm, nonfirearm, handgun, and long-gun homicide rates in all 50 states during the 25-year period of 1991 to 2015. We included year and state fixed effects and numerous state-level factors in the analysis.

>Results. Shall-issue laws were significantly associated with 6.5% higher total homicide rates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates, but were not significantly associated with long-gun or nonfirearm homicide.

>Conclusions. Shall-issue laws are associated with significantly higher rates of total, firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5678379/
>>
>>822812
>Strange, every law enforcement agency opposes permitless carry since it increases crime.
Wrong again Bootlicker
— Detroit police chief James Craig has repeatedly called on "good" and "law- abiding" Detroiters to arm themselves against the criminals of the city.
Detroit sank into bankruptcy due to Democratic policies,
The Chief came from LAPD no less.
Most law enforcement agencies just want to be the only ones to show up to trouble with a gun. It’s a lot easier to exert authority when you have a monopoly on force multipliers. It also makes them feel safer. This might also coincide with why they tend to mag dump on a dog when they encounter one protecting their owners. Yet we have thousands of mail carriers that use pepper spray and a satchel. If you call the police, you are calling for bringing a gun into the situation, not always but most of the time. Why not have one and cut out the middleman? Besides when it’s a life or death situation and seconds count, remember that the police are minutes away. They are there to do the paperwork. City police can’t be everywhere and can get overwhelmed. It can be worse in rural areas. Some Sherrif departments only have 2 deputies on duty at a given time and have to cover hundreds of square miles. Many rural law enforcement agencies want good people to get their ccw.
>>
>>822874
Interesting, I read the Stockton one and shootings went down. They tried this in other cities also. I’m not sure if giving habitual offenders $12000/yr to not shoot another is the way to go or not. On the other hand, it costs a lot more than $12k to keep a prisoner incarcerated, and prisons are full.
>>
>>823278
>Results. Shall-issue laws were significantly associated with 6.5% higher total homicide rates, 8.6% higher firearm homicide rates, and 10.6% higher handgun homicide rates, but were not significantly associated with long-gun or nonfirearm homicide.
>>Conclusions. Shall-issue laws are associated with significantly higher rates of total, firearm-related, and handgun-related homicide.
It just says higher rates. If this means more offenders getting killed while in the commission of a crime, (and it VERY WELL COULD) you are going to have to show me the downside to this. Cause in the simplest of terms, that’s a habitual offender that society doesn’t have to feed, cloth, provide healthcare, guard, have police investigation on, assign parole officers for, pay for more prosecutors and other administrators. But, I’m a firm believer that if the fist person that stuck his head through the broken glass door of the Quicktrip in Ferguson got a high speed dose of lead, the one behind him would have turned around and left. Instead, Ferguson burnt, as well as other places. Remember “Hands up don’t shoot”. Eye witness testimony and then when it came down to it confessed it was all a lie.
>>
>>823278
>We used a quasi-experimental panel design, taking advantage of changes in state concealed-carry permitting laws over time, to explore the relationship between these laws and total, firearm-related, and non–firearm-related homicide rates in the 50 states over a 25-year period, 1991 to 2015. We modeled homicide rates in 2 ways: (1) using a negative binomial regression with homicide rates as the outcome variable and (2) using linear regression with log-transformed homicide rates as the outcome variable. In both cases, we included year and state fixed effects and controlled for a range of time-varying, state-level factors.

> household firearm ownership (using the standard proxy, which is the percentage of all suicides committed with a firearm), proportion of Blacks, proportion of young adults (aged 18 to 29 years), proportion of men among young adults, proportion of the population living in urban areas, total population, population density, per capita alcohol consumption, the nonhomicide violent crime rate (aggravated assault, robbery, and forcible rape), the poverty rate, unemployment rate, median household income, per capita disposable income, incarceration rate, and per capita number of law enforcement officers. Variable definitions and data sources

So they made up fake numbers. Weird how anti gun studies always do this. Also fucked up that they said they controlled for "Black"
>>
>>823295
>So they made up fake numbers. Weird how anti gun studies always do this. Also fucked up that they said they controlled for "Black"
They also use the “per 100,000 population”. Which is done solely to make the small town of 5,000 with one homicide appear to be a violence ridden Wild West, compared to the big cities with population in the millions. I’ve noticed some of the crime ratings in small towns looking at real estate websites and these very small towns have very high rates, then you look further and it’s *estimated numbers.
>>
>>821493
>Only Coservatives are pro-gun, and they blame minorities for crimes with weapons.
Incorrect. I’m a libertarian and I value the right to bear arms. Yet I’m not really into the whole ‘nationalism’ thing some conservatives are trying to sell me. I just want our liberty to be preserved.
>>
>>823295
What specifically do you think is fake? They are using real data. Are you just confused by "dagnabbed scary mathematical wordy thingamajigs" like binomial regression, linear regression and logarithmic transformation? Or are you just butthurt because it proves you wrong?
>>
>>823312
They said they controlled for "state level factors" and "proportion of Blacks, proportion of young adults (aged 18 to 29 years), proportion of men among young adults, proportion of the population living in urban areas, total population, population density, per capita alcohol consumption, the nonhomicide violent crime rate (aggravated assault, robbery, and forcible rape), the poverty rate, unemployment rate, median household income, per capita disposable income, incarceration rate, and per capita number of law enforcement officers."
which means they plugged numbers into a formula until they found the results they wanted and then worked backwards from there to justify the numbers. Whenever you see "we controlled for black people" it means they are going out of their way to fuck with the numbers because if they just went with the numbers they wouldn't get the results they wanted. This is like that one anti gun study nigel always links that says that more gun sales equals more crime and then if you actually go and read the data it shows that adding one black person causes 50 times as many crimes as adding one gun.
>>
>>823320
>which means they plugged numbers into a formula until they found the results they wanted and then worked backwards from there to justify the numbers.
Nope. Sorry your feelings got hurt so bad you have to squirm into silliness. Maybe head down to the shoot 'em range to take out your frustrations since the possibility of a promising date on Sat. night offering release is out of the question for you.
>>
>>823345
Funny how this board slows down in the middle of the day, when all the overseas posters are sleeping.
>>
>>823345
so why don't they just publish the raw data? Why do they feel they have to take into account 1,000 different variables aside from what they are studying? What percentage of crimes are committed by people without permits in states that require them? They are clearly massaging the data. Shouldn't the FBI be doing this since it's crime, not health?

If you tell me these questions mean I'm an extremist, you're full of shit Nigel
>>
>>823370
I agree with the general statistical sentiment that expanded constitutional carry doesn't result in significant upticks in crime but, honestly, this "they plugged the numbers into a formula into they found the results they wanted all of the data is a conspiracy reeee" bullshit is so cringe, dude. You're such a bad cheerleader for 2A issues you just make us all look unhinged. The best thing you could do for the movement is take your medication and sit back because you argue like an absolute retard. None of your counter claims made any sense and you didn't engage with the data at all. You just vaguely gesture at conspiracy without making any points. Every time I hear one of you nuts on a podcast or live stream debating 2A I cringe myself into a fucking rage because your inability to defend your position like a sane person sets meaningful 2A discourse back so far.
>>
>>823372
This. The only reason we have gun control at all is because of retards like >>823370 scaring all the normies.
>>
>>823372
>>823370 was me, >>823320 was someone else, but I give Nigel shit on a regular basis as well. We need thread poster ID's.

CNN just fact checked Biden and determined he was full of shit.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/09/politics/biden-gun-control-executive-actions-speech-fact-check/index.html
>Biden claimed that "the only industry in America -- a billion-dollar industry -- that can't be sued -- has exempt from being sued -- are gun manufacturers."
>Facts First: This is false. Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they only industry with some liability protections.

>Biden claimed that "If you walk into a store and you buy a gun, you have a background check. But you go to a gun show, you can buy whatever you want and no background check."
>Facts First: This framing from Biden is misleading, since it leaves the false impression that gun shows are exempt from background check laws.

>He said that states with red flag laws have "seen a reduction in the number of suicides in their states."
>Facts First: This needs context. Research on this subject is limited, some of the available research data is mixed, and suicide rates have increased around the US in the 21st century.
>>
>>823381
>CNN just fact checked Biden and determined he was full of shit.
My argument wasn't that I enjoy gun control or Biden's policies. My argument was the opposite. My argument was also that unhinged gun-nuts like you who can't engage with data should stop cheerleading 2A issues because you do permanent damage to our ability to intelligently engage with normies who know nothing about guns other than stories of mass shooters they see on the news. The biggest thing you should know about regular, non-psychotic normies that is that don't really give a shit about your list of "this bad that bad" talking points. What they want is policy. They want solutions, not your endless list of grievances. Instead of fact checking Biden speeches that are designed to virtue signal to terrified liberals how about you do your own research and come up with some data supported solutions you can bring to people instead of saying "Hey, you there, listen to me complain for 45 minutes about gun takes from random liberals I found on Twitter without offering any kind of solution or assurance that I'm not fucking insane"
>>
>>823384
Not that dude but I think the issue is
>They want solutions
Solutions to social problems are very difficult and people are very lazy. "Gun control" is the gimme solution. I think it would be far better to combat the "this is a serious enough issue that we need to violate everyone's rights to solve it" train of thought. It's hard because the propaganda is pretty fucking intense. There is serious power and money involved with the opposition.
>>
>>823388
>Solutions to social problems are very difficult and people are very lazy.
Exactly, which is why the solution is not purposefully misrepresenting data and publicly advertising how fucking insane you are. If people only care about optics and not so much the meat of the issue then a deranged gun-nut whose only way of engaging with an issue is trashing liberals is going to torpedo whatever agenda you have into the ground. It may work with people who already agree with you but it will win 0 hears and 0 minds. This is my biggest issues with the schizo-posting gun nuts here. The shitty thing is I agree with them but they damage the fuck out of all 2A discourse and only help in turning it into another virtue signal boxing ring where we all swing at each other and make no progress.

>I think it would be far better to combat the "this is a serious enough issue that we need to violate everyone's rights to solve it" train of thought.
Hard disagree. It would be far better to come up with common sense solutions that appeal to people and give them a chance to positively engage and spread those ideas instead of sinking endless energy into just screaming how bad everything is into an empty cave. You know whats more popular then Republicans screaming about how terrible our healthcare is? A healthcare plan. You whats more popular than Democrats screaming about how awful our tax code is? Tax reform. This is the formula every single time and you should of figure it out by now because "liberal bad muh liberty muh rights" lost conservatives the house, senate and white house. They spent four years claiming that any day the far-left liberals would send transgendered MS-13 terrorists to their house to force sex changes on their kids and they got fucking stomped. Its shit messaging. Its shit optics. It doesn't work.
>>
>>823384
pointing out how some studies manipulate data to provide a pre-determined outcome isn't unhinged ranting, it's specifically countering what is being presented to support gun control. Here is an article posted in another thread that shows how there is no statistical link between firearms ownership and gun murder. Further it shows examples of how Vox manipulates the same data in its own articles.

https://hwfo.substack.com/p/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between

We all want a solution to gun violence, but it's not going to have much to do with guns, instead it's going to focus on crime reduction in general by addressing social and cultural issues.
>continue violence retaliation intervention in hospitals so gang members stop shooting other gang members because they got shot
>jobs programs to repair our shit infrastructure, most of this is unskilled labor or could get OJT
>better urban planning that doesn't involve shoving welfare recipients into commie-blocks
>legalize recreational drug use
>update NICS so it can more easily get data from all states' databases
>make NICS available for private sales to encourage background checks for private sales
>>
>>823390
Can you propose a solution then that doesn't violate the 2A and doesn't severely restrict gun ownership in some way? Some way that actually fixes the problem?

There is the core issue with the propoganda. It's framing the solution by framing the problem. "Guns are the problem, restrict them". However, they aren't the problem. Deranged copycats are the problem. Do you know how to stop copycats? I do. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-media-needs-to-stop-inspiring-copycat-murders-heres-how/266439/
>>
>>823391
>pointing out how some studies manipulate data to provide a pre-determined outcome isn't unhinged ranting
But you didn't do that. You vaguely gestured at some conspiracy to "massage" the data without engaging with the data. You were given an opportunity to maintain your position while accepting the validity of the data but you're so dogmatically committed to your 2A agenda that you come off like a dipshit. Take all of this with the fact that I am staunchly 2A in mind.

>Here is an article posted in another thread that shows how there is no statistical link between firearms ownership and gun murder.
Firstly, there is a statistical link, it just isn't a significant one. I agree with your point but you're arguing in complete bad faith. Firstly, the data was covering gun ownership rates in states with that state's gun murder rate. That's an awful way to measure that correlation given how vastly a state's population density and geography of gun ownership concentration can vary. Given that we know for a fact that there is a link between owning a gun and people using that gun its disingenuous as fuck to say there's NO LINK between owning a gun and killing someone with that gun. When you take this position you come off as a dishonest fuck. What your position should be is that there is no statistically SIGNIFICANT link. The data isn't conclusive but, at the very least, it doesn't establish the trend that more gun owners means a disproportionate rate of gun murders. We can say that confidently given that the gun murders in our country occur in a small handful of very compact urban populations. Of course there's a link, its just not significant enough to establish a defensible causal link.
>>
>>823393
>>823391
Wait, he is complaining about constitutional carry data? Lol, idgaf. I seriously don't understand why boomers are so fucking obsessed with that shit and all the 2A advocacy groups are pushing that (successfully I might add) in so many states. I'd rather money/effort be spent fighting feature and name bans, and the NFA in general. Who gives a flying fuck about not having to have a permit to carry in public. Hell, people should have to have a permit to carry in public.
>>
>>823393
>Can you propose a solution then that doesn't violate the 2A and doesn't severely restrict gun ownership in some way? Some way that actually fixes the problem?
Absolutely. End the war on drugs. Decriminalize or legalize them and massively invest into programs which treat drug issues like a medical issue instead of a criminal one. Ending the war on drugs would not only reduce the cost of policing by billions but it would pretty much bankrupt the cartels and take all of the financial incentive out of gang activity in our urban centers. Take drugs out of these neighborhoods and invest in jobs programs and infrastructure, just like >>823391 suggested and, pretty much overnight, you could absolutely decimate gun violence rates in inner cities. This is just a start.

>There is the core issue with the propoganda.
There is a core issue with propaganda concerning every issue but you don't address propaganda by screaming at it. You address it by giving people ideas they can sink their teeth into and engage with, not empty talking points. News outlets and anti-gunners would have so much less ammo to use against the 2A if the people that represented 2A had actual solutions and weren't frothing maniacs who went on the news to reeee about government tyranny whenever the country is reeling from another mass shooting. All they do is put fuel on the fire.

>Do you know how to stop copycats? I do. https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/12/the-media-needs-to-stop-inspiring-copycat-murders-heres-how/266439/
I appreciate that you've engaged in good faith but this is such a bullshit non-solution, I'm sorry. Not reporting on mass shootings anymore is not going to do anything to meaningful address 2A discourse and will only give anti-gunners the "the media is covering up violence for the corporate overlords" narrative to bash you over the head with. A million times no, anon. There's roughly 5,000 things we could do to address discourse more sensible than this.
>>
>>823394
What do you want? There's no cut and dry argument against it, unless you have one you're sitting on. Is adding all those controls not "massaging" the data? I really don't want to sort through that thing to try and understand how all the controls affect the data, when I'm arguing that the act of applying them in the first place affects the data to such a degree that the conclusions are suspect. The study itself said there were 10 other studies, 2 found shall-issue decreases homicide, 2 found shall-issue increases homicide, and 6 found no correlation. Yes, I meant to say statistically significant, you clearly know I meant that. Don't go and say "this will turn off the normies" because I left out one word that many people wouldn't even pick up on.

>>823395
I wasn't talking about constitutional carry. Earlier in the thread someone mentioned permitless carry and then this study is mostly about shall-issue permits. It has the word "constitutional" in the name so that's why the boomers flock to it. I'm with you on everything else, even fucking TX requires a permit to carry. I live in a ban state and the laws are fucking stupid and confusing, they're designed to discourage ownership. "You can't buy an AR-15 here, we're smarter than those flyover fucks," is a common sentiment. I absolutely can buy an AR-15 here, it just costs $3000 because it's pre-ban.
>>
>>823395
>Hell, people should have to have a permit to carry in public.
Why? If you are legally allowed to have a handgun, you should be ok to conceal carry. Not having your drivers license and Ccw permit tied together as well as being a verified handgun owner to the government is not such a bad thing. (4473s stay with the ffl for 15 years, I think ). My state had someone in the highway patrol send the feds a list of every ccw hiker in the state. Oops. Nothing happened except now it is handled by the county Sheriff. Having a dispatcher tell a nervous cop you are ccw and him draw a gun on you for this reason is a plus. Having to pay $150 every time I move counties in the same state is. I live in a constitutional carry state. Open carry is legal, but I’m not a fan of that. Feature bans are suck, but I really doubt we will ever get rid of NFA altogether, suppressors maybe, but to walk out of your local store with a fully auto is probably out there.
>>
>>823396
>Take drugs out of these neighborhoods
Decriminalizing will never remove drugs from these neighborhoods. As long as there is a demand, someone will provide them.
>>
>229 / 0 / 47 / 1

Do not respond to schizoposter. If you must, remember the option "nonokosage" is the only option.
>>
>>823408
>What do you want? There's no cut and dry argument against it, unless you have one you're sitting on.
I've already stated what I want. Also, the fact that there's no cut and dry argument doesn't mean you should argue like an idiot.

>Yes, I meant to say statistically significant, you clearly know I meant that.
I didn't, which is why I criticized you. If you're making a prescriptive argument you absolutely need to state what your threshold is.

>Don't go and say "this will turn off the normies" because I left out one word that many people wouldn't even pick up on.
No, I said it will turn off normies because your critique was nebulous not at all engaged with the data. The data doesn't have to be "massaged" for you to disagree with a conclusion, especially when in this case we know for a fact that there are a myriad of externalities that contribute to gun murder. For example, a poor guy with a gun is infinitely more likely to commit a crime with that gun than a rich guy with a gun but multivariate analysis definitively tells us that even without the gun present the likelihood of committing a violent crime is still disproportionate. You definitely could of come at it from this angle but you didn't. I agree with you but your analysis was pretty hollow and didn't engage with the topic meaningfully at all.
>>
>>823445
>Decriminalizing will never remove drugs from these neighborhoods.
When combined with easy access to rehabilitation services, legalization and/or decriminalization statistically reduces drug use by a significant amount. Its just an empirical fact. Portugal is a great example of this. Legalization equals no more black market, rehabilitation equals less addicts, less addicts and no more black market equals a dramatic decrease in profits for cartels. Less profit for cartels equals less drug crime, gang activity, financial incentive for drug trade, smaller police budgets, reduced prison populations. The list goes on and on. Its a massively positive policy no matter which way you cut it.

>https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it
Here's an article which cites Portgual's radical drug policy for a dramatic decrease in overdoses, HIV infection and drug related crime.

>As long as there is a demand, someone will provide them.
Legalization and a health-forward approach to drug use drastically reduces demand. Less demand equals less drug markets. If less violence is what you want then less drug markets should be on the top of your list. Portugal aside we already have a massive amount of empirical evidence that shows that access to rehabilitation exponentially reduces drug usage, criminal recidivism and relapse.
>>
>>823452
I’ll have a look at the article tomorrow, I don’t know if I’m on board for legalization of all drugs. I’d like to see how Oregon goes. But if it’s all about raising the rate to prosecute thefts to over $1k and accepting that the sidewalks and business stairs are public bathrooms, not so much.
>>
I cant wait for criminals with nothing to lose and cops that don't give a shit about you to be the only people who can arm themselves that sounds like a great plan
>>
>>822395
>you need to give up your ability to defend yourself because it makes me feel uncomfortable
Its amazing how self centered some people are
>>
>>823345
Almost every poll and every study, is skewed. It doesn’t matter if it’s a poll for for a political race or a ”study” on drug use, crime, gun regulation. The study discussed here, took a lot of variables into account that I question the relevance. How does per capita number of police officers, incarceration rate or the myriad of other extraneous factors incorporated into the formula not skew this? How can you possibly factor in these 20 or so variables? How would you weight them? I’m for agreeing with the one that said show us the raw data. Remember that the CDC got spanked by Congress in the mid 90’s for doing exactly this, reverse engineering studies. They got their budget cut by several million when one of the higher ups went on record stating he wanted to vilify and make gun ownership so terrible in public opinion, that no one would want one. Congress basically told him your job isn’t to set public opinion and policy. Congress restored the funding a few years ago.
Many of the relevant variables are not even reported and can’t be put into a study. How many rapists, muggers, car jackers etc, have turned round and stopped mid crime, when a gun was presented? No shots fired. No police report. We also rarely see the numbers for justified shootings as they just get tallied up as another “instance of gun violence “. The answers to this societal problem are indeed complex, but infringing on law abiding citizens to try to curtail the criminal ones is a very poor solution. Criminals don’t get a ccw, they won’t stop using guns. They do not care about breaking the law, they have little to lose, and will break any law that is passed.
>>
>>823452
Good article, I never new about Portugal and this strategy. Maybe this is a better idea than having people in prisons for 20 years for an oz. of weed. It would free up some cells for the violent offenders.
>>
>>823945
>new
*knew.
>>
>>823728
Butt hurt shill post inbound, I'm sure
>>
>>823957
Hi, we're doing a phone survey. Do you keep large sums of cash or jewellery at home?
>>
>>823957
>Hello, this is a self attestation survey from the national institute of gun violence
>Please answer the following questions on a scale of one to five, with one being ' I strongly disagree', and five being 'i strongly agree'
>Question 1: more criminals should have guns
>Question 2: guns are best used shooting someone
>Question 3: I want my child shot at school
>Question 4: I want to be shot
>Question 5: crazy maniacs deserve guns
>
>Thank you for your time.
>Based on your answers, and the answers of others the vast majority of Americans are in favor of gun control
>This data will be used to justify the removal of your future rights to oppose a tyrannical government





Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.