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

@georgetakei As usually you are spot on my man... FOX is trash, republicans are trash ... we can do better...

@DoesntExist

Whatever you want to call it is fine by me.. Point is you came in like a child having a tantrum making it quite clear youd be a waste of time to engage with in good-faith or to have anything remotely resembling a mature conversation... therefore I did not engage with your questions, and wont, until you actually behave like an adult.

Most of the reason i have 31K followers is because I engage with them respectfully and naturally no matter how strongly I disagree with them... in an internet world full of people like you spreading toxicity and insults rather than anything useful and productive it tends to result in quite a few followers.

@georgetakei

@ambihelical Not sure how you can look at that and think its flat, but ok... I do agree on your point about assault rifles though.

@StevePaintsNSkates

Nope, sadly thats not true.. Though I can understand why you might think so as there is a **lot** of manipulated and unethical use of statistics out there and it takes a professional to usually spot it and discernt he credible analysis from the junk.. but yea, anyone who understands data science and is truely being objective will see, quite clearly, not only did they not work, they made things WORSE.

If you want to threaten to block every scientist who tells you your wrong and not have a mature conversation instead, go for it. You'd be doing me a favor...

@Litzz11 @georgetakei

@plenartowicz

Hahah fair.. well I would never claim these casual posts constitute valid rigerous peer-reviewed scientific content. Even though ive done this analysis many times as a professional data scientist, and have seen nothing but validity in this assessment, even that doesnt count as a proper peer-reviewed rigorous assertion, obviously. But until I see good science that disagrees with it ill stick with it.

@rdaily

@plenartowicz

I assume you agree that holds equally true for the original post then, since I made it a point to use the same informal approach with the same parameters as the OP (and for a reason(.

@rdaily

@rdaily Also more to the point (and can be seen even in your chart if you look carefully), mass shootings **increased** by about 30% immediately following and during the assault riffle ban (clearly it didnt work)... once the ban was lifted mass shootings continued to rise at about the same 30% rate.

This would suggest that the assault riffle band had absolutely no positive effect on mass shootings of any kind.

@rdaily Here are some very similar patterns from all over the world too.

@rdaily Here isd a similar chart of historic homicide rates and points where major democrat led gun control acts were enacted...

I care alot more about homicide, something that is rampant and an actual issue than I care about school shootings which, while tragic, a child is about two times more likely to get struck by lightening than to die in a school shooting.

@Hyolobrika@berserker.town We passed that point of concern a LONG time ago on this account :)

@timorl Actually after a bit more consideration I think I was a bit hasrsh with you in both my tone and my judgement,... While I do feel I was justified I think you have some point in the fact that diect linking provides easier access to harassment.. though as I said I wouldnt say that is the same as promoting harassment, and you are right, explicitly stating to my followers not to harass could have been a cautious step to take.

@StevePaintsNSkates

> Democrats try to institute magazine capacity limits, bans on bump stocks, bans on guns designed for the battlefield, red flag laws, background checks, waiting periods....it goes on and on.

Yup all examples of things that pander to the public because a misinformed public think those things help when in fact they make things worse... especially when thats what they SAY they do.. for e4xample no, they havenever banned a gun meant fo the battle field, they ban things like AR-15 which has never seen a battle field and its overwhelming use is to kill small pests. It isnt even suitable for deer hunting... so yea they sit there doing things that people will **think** are real actions but int he end the end result is an increase in violence not a decrease beecause all they did was restrict access to guns for people who arent the problem.

Yes republicans do block those nonse4nse, uninformed, and not backed by science attempts... they arent wrong for that...

Now where republicans ARE wrong, and they do bare a lot of blame, is in the blocking of access to mental health and other things which are actual genuine solutions to our problem.

@Litzz11 @georgetakei

@timorl Their reach is far from small.. They have 5K followers, so my reafch on followers is only 6x larger... BUT as I said they were using mailing lists, and posting to hash tags which meant they were intentionally trying to spread their message (lies) much farther than me.. so effectively since they were trying to extend their reach, I was not, it was pretty balanced int hat regard.

Regardless I dont think that matters.. if you are engaging in slander, you deserve no protection for the consequences of being a liara and a shitty person getting out to the public.

I mean i dont see much of a difference between him explicitly putting my handle in all of his slanderous posts (which is a copy and paste away from contacting me anyway..

And as I said, if you get harassed because the truth about you gets out and turns out you were lying and being a horrible person... thats on you, not the person who told the world what you did, particularly when that person is the one you tried to slander.

You dont get to ask someone to not QT you when you are actively lying about them and publicly starting a commotion directed at them.. nope no way. If he were simply saying stupid shit and I was QTing him but it had little to do with me then I might agree.

@Hyolobrika@berserker.town j I think that is more a problem in how you view things than anything I said... explaining **why** a think happens is **not** the same as justifying a thing that happens.

These very sort of mind games "how dare you justify X by explaining how one action might cause it" is why we cant get anywhere as a society. Not everything needs to be painted with a broad stroke of the same color lacking any nuance for fear the nuance might explain external factors.

@barcode this is true as well...