🎓 Dr. Freemo 🇳🇱 @freemo@social.cleverlibre.org

@kinyutaka

Should a person with a criminal record of beating, and a legal recogtnition of their danger to the person with a restraining order have a gun... as long as the restraining order is based on evidence that the person has been violent int he past, then I'd say no... I'd also say that they should probably be in jail and the point of a gun is moot then anyway.,

@marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@kinyutaka

While I certainly lean towards "very liberal access to guns", I never made the claim that guns should have no restrictions of any form. So thats a bit of a strawman there.

In fact I already stated that if licensing was done very carefully I would probably support it (fast,l same day licensing, no ability to act as registration, and no financial barriers or the ability to deny a person a license if they have learned all the skills)

@marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@rufovillosum

Are you kidding me, I never once told you **anything** about my family history or what traumas mr or my family have expiernced.

I also made quite clear it is a tragedy and it needs be mourned. But the point is we need to stop the lie and narrative that it is common rather than being rarer than getting hit by lightening... being honest, while still mournful is the only valid way to approch any event like this.

@stevesilberman

@kinyutaka

and just to address your second half.. my concerns here are bit odf tangents as they relate only marginally to preventing death.

The longer it takes to get guns (including the time it takes to get trained and licensed) the more time there is for a person who is in a life threatening person to remain at risk... A woman who has been threatened or has a stalking rapist needs a gun **today** and restricting her access puts her life at risk. Yes we have cops, but by the time a cop gets there a woman would long since been raped assuming she could call the cops first at all.

But the other issues like cost and registration are serious concerned but arent related to the core issue here of loss of life, those points related to other important but tangental concerns that will muddly the water. So ill pass on diving into that part.

@marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@kinyutaka

> Then you should have read my comment, because I specifically pointed out licensing and training.

I did read your comment it was as follows:

> What is similar to these two states? They have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, mostly involving licensing and training of potential gun owners.

I chose to address the "most restrictive int he country" part. The points about licensing and training have their own more nuanced issues and at no point did I feel the need to push against that aspect as I dont think its the most concerning part.. the restricted access is the issue, not the training (outside of the difficulty in the process which i did address already)

@marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@kristofor Dont be an idiot, that was not the intent. People want to talk about it, great. But instead of being an ass and resorting to personal attacks because you dont like the way the converssation went be mature about it and jump in and steer the conversation to the points you feel are important.. you have the mike, talk tell us whats important, I know ill be happy to respond as well others, at least, as long as you stop with bad-faith nonsense.

@kinyutaka

I never actually claimed licensing and training is something that is harmful or that I am against... I specifically discussing restricting access to guns,a s long as that training takes into account certain concerns it may be perfectly fine, but I'd imagine you might press back on many of the concerns as well.. but overall I am not trying to sit here arguing you cant require some forms of training for guns so long as everyone has access to it and that training is 1) free 2) quick and 3) does not act as a gun registry indirectly

@marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@DoesntExist

Are you really lacking that much self awareness.

While, yes, you did post attacks against my claims sprinked throughout your response, and these attacks themselves are both welcome and valid talking points...it was also intermingled with constant passive aggressive, insulting, and rude comments... are you really going to sit here nad try to claim you were being passive agressive or arguing in good faith when it literally was spewing all over your post?

Just becauseyou throw in some valid talking points I'd be happy to address in isolation doesnt change the fact that all the content between those talking points were effectivelly a immature tantrum with clear signals that any attempt to make an honest engagement with you would be a complete waste of time.

Now if you feel like apologizing and want to start over with a more mature conversation I would be more than happy to accept your apology and move forward with a more meantingful conversation.

@lawnikky @georgetakei

@lawnikky

Actually while the overwhelming majority of countries that banned guns saw large spikes in homicide and violence rates as a result, you actually are correct that australia was an exception and they saw very little change overall.

What we saw in australia is that following the gun buyback program unlike other countries homicide rates did go down.. Sadly sexual assault rates sky rocketed by a similar number. So not sure I'd call that a win.

for reference I've attached some violent crime and homicide rates correlating to gun law changes for reference and we can see fairly obviously that australia tends to be the exception.

One important note is there isnt a gun problem, ther eis a biolence problem.. so you are doing dishonest analysis if you are looking at gun violence in isolation and ignoring the other violence and murder that guns also prevent.

@DoesntExist @georgetakei

@strawd No your numbers are wrong.. we are tlking per day...

so 348K students expiernced gun violence over the course of ~24 years...

348000/24/365 = 39 per day

How many school kids are there at any point in time on average? 55 million kids int he USA between 5 and 18 years old (all public grade schools)

So thats 39 per 55 million. or a 1 in 1.4 million chance of a child being exposed to gun violence in their school on any given day.

This all assumes the original stats are true which i didnt fact check.

@DoesntExist

Ahh wonderful, your passive aggressive toxicity has now turned into bald face childish insults and a little toddler tantrum... wow you really are a train wreck in slow motion.

I can see I made the right judgemment call on you too by not engaging with you. My determination you'd just be a waste of my time, aggressive, and bad-faith arguing is confirmed more with each response... dodged the bullet there.

Carry on though, it is entertaining to see you act like an 8 year old rather than engaging in an actual mature and productive conversation...

@lawnikky @georgetakei

@joelle

> 31 kids were killed in school shootings in 2022 in the US.
>
> 19 people *of all ages* (not just kids) were killed by lightning last year.

This has little relevance to what I said...

1) I said nothing about people dieing from lighting, I said struck by lightening

2) I made it cclear the point of the comparison was to show how insanely rare a child dieing ina school shooting is, so I compared it to another extremely rare event for comparison. That is all.

> I (maybe?) agree that school shootings aren't the only problem, and solving school shootings isn't enough to help the majority of kids killed every year.

I am glad we agree there.

> I'm fine with bodily autonomy too, but I'm not fine with making guns easier to access than mental health care and social safety nets--that has predictable outcomes with suicide.

We agree gere as well.. not because I think access to guns should be restricted, much the opposite I think access to guns should be fairly easy and upheld as a primary right... We agree because I think access to health care should also be upheld as a primary right and while gun access should be easy mental healthcare access should be even easier.

@stevesilberman

@realcaseyrollins@social.teci.world

I've been in Israel a year and a half now and am here for most of this nonsense... it is truely crazy right now.

@realcaseyrollins@narwhal.city

@kinyutaka

I am not criticising your lack of detail, im criticising your use of data and interpritation that is in direct contradiction of valid statistical analysis.. its the invalidity of your technique in question, not the brevity of it.. it would be equally invalid at any length since the premise itself is known bad analysis.

@marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@DoesntExist

Funny how your spitting out all these quotastions of things no one ever said.. and so beautifully passive aggressive and bad-faith, not to mention toxic... its a work of beauty really, congrats. Thanks for being a waste of electricity on the internet, wonderful.

@lawnikky @georgetakei

@Cleopatra@c.im

Nope, never said that either... you could alwyas try a good-ffaith discussion and politely (without hidden subtext of passive aggression) what my opinion is... I will very directly tell you as long as you give me the impression you are wotth my time to talk to and will have a mature good-faith discussion.

@marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@kinyutaka

So as a professional statistician I was very clear to state that the critiea is valid analysis, and i pointed out that to do so you'd have to use granger causality or similar techniques.

Is what you just described granger causality or a valid way of analyzing the data based on how experts are trained who know how to analyze data?

Obviously the answer is no, but what I find telling is why did you try to spit out numbers, which i assume were cherry picked (though maybe not intentionally) and not actually ask what i meant by granger causality and try to first learn, objectively, why I suggested it as one of the few forms of proper analysis in this context?

@marq @Litzz11 @georgetakei

@realcaseyrollins

Maybe.. what if their kid has mental health issues? What if their kid was traumatized by someone at school and has caused a psychotic break... I dont think these incidents are as straight forward as "the parent didnt teach their child to be a good person".. psychology is a great deal more complex than that. Good people with good morals who have a predisposition or are just traumatized enough can do horrible things because, well, they can be insane in those moments.

@joelle

> Firearms are the number one cause of death for kids. It's a combination of murder, suicide, and accidents. Guns make all of these more likely.

Technically true, though not contrary to anything I said either. I was talking about school shooting, not gun deaths overall, which is a different but important topic.

So while this is moving the goal post fallacy for hte conversation it doesnt mean it isnt relevant as its own side topic to discuss it is.

The issue here is far more complex. For starters, I am of the unpopular opinion that suicide, like all bodily autonomy, is a sacred right. We should be trying to prevent it by providing good mental health access as wella s healthy home environments but we should not be trying to take away the means of suicide. As tragic as it is, every person has a right to determine what they want to do witht heir own body and that includes suicide.

Next once we get to murder with a firearm then it becomes a bit of a misframing of the problem. What we want to do is reduce the murder of children, that includes by any means whether its knife, gun, or strangling, anys solution we pick cant decrease one type of death and increase the other, so we need to look at the whole picture. When we do it paints a picture that we dont have a "gun problem" we have a "kids killing kids problem". The question we have to ask is how do we reduce that. Doesnt mean guns dont have a place in that conversation, but it is self-defeating to get tunnelvision if we analyze that aspect of the problem in isolation.

@stevesilberman