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

@justaboutnormal

When you provided tbose links it appears you completely ignkred tbe criteria i explained would make a good study and what wouldnt... why are you cherry picking studies we already covered woukd be dishonest intellectually in this debate rather than using analysis that uses causality tests and therefore woukd be valid?

You can absolutely change my mind, i change my mind 10 times before breakfast. But i was carreful to explain the criteria before you did exactly what you did and post studies that are trch ically true but simply do not apply to the argument at hand, much like the antivaxxer nonsense of "if we made vaccines illegal there would bw less vaccine related death... like sure jts true, and sure you can find studies to verify it, but jt also has nothing to do with if vaccines should be legal either.

Now i explained earlier before you even posted why studies of these nature woukd be jntellectually dishonest, did you not understand that, do you want to get into that again or we just burrying our head in the sand now.

Talk to me when you have studies that use proper analysis for thr problrm, causality tests.

@justaboutnormal I think we would have to discuss the criteria and conditions first... I dont know your level of expertise. Presuming you are familiar with fair statistical analysis can we agree that we can use simple correlation against other countries due to confounding and the way to analyze this sort of data is using granger causality or similar causality tests?

@justaboutnormal

> This is clearly your opinion.

Clearly, I'd wager a correct opinion as well. But yes it is an opinion, much as it is your opinion as to who you think qualifies as a constitutional scholar.

> As for your premise that other measures would mitigate gun violence, you’re absolutely right and we should have better social supports,

Good glad we agree on that.

> but it is also true (the data supports this) that stricter gun laws result in less gun violence.

Absolutely false, but there is a lot of intellectually dishonest analysis from both sides, so I can understand how you might make this incorrect assumption, in fact the opposite is true (the data that is well done and objective, using valid arguments, strongly suggests reducing guns increases violence.)

@mike805

Japan has a much healthier social environment built on respect, and much much better access to mental health than americans... So Japan is just as well explained by the two criteria I already gave earlier than by access to guns.

@pj @thatguyoverthere @lmrocha

@peterdrake trilobyte porn is my kink.

@hasmis Attached is the hockey stick... notice quite clearly it begins around 1900...

This is why its rediculous your arguing for anything in this debate.. you are so extremely uneducated in even the basic statements that its hard to take you serious on any level, and makes you discredit yourself to be this uninformed and yet to still have a strong opinion.

@hasmis The of of the curve is important,a nd it is a hockey stick... that curve however starts around 1900s (industrial era).. so you are far too zoomed in to see it. Which is why, as expected and in total agreement with the claims you see consistent global warming and no hockey stick... get the same graph starting a few hundred years back and it will be quite noticable.

@pj

> In my opinion if you have to use guns to solve anything (even in case of the police) it means we as a society suck.

Then every society on earth sucks, and I wont disagree with that... Until you eliminate rape and violent acts from even being attempted then you will never be able to rely on cops. Cops will always be some distance away and it will always require you to have access to a phone and early enough warning make the phone call.

Usually if someone is being raped or held at knife point or assaulted in the overwhelming majority of cases there was never a chance to even reach out to the police in the first place.

So yes I am happy to eliminate guns, if the criteria for it is you must first eliminate all violent crimes so you can ensure we dont need those guns in the first place.

When a guy is twice your size physical defense training is perhaps going to help the womans odds slightly but she will still be at a huge disadvantage, afterall men and women can both get that same training so its not a equalizing force.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@hasmis No I am saying the **entire** graph shows very clearly that the earth has consistently went through global warming from 1900's onward. The begining middle and end all show consistent HDD decreaing (which is equivelant to consistent warming since the 1900s).

@justaboutnormal

> Constitutional scholars have debated the intent of these words for years.

Not any constitutional scholars who deserve to be called that... The founding fathers explicitly explained what they meant, and the courts of the time have made more than enough rulings to make clear exactly what the initial interpretation was.

> Regardless we have a major problem in the US that other countries with stricter gun laws do not have. That is incontrovertible.

Nah there are tons of ways you could phrase that, you are assuming a cause-effect relationship when the data suggests there either is none, or it is the inverse of what you apply.

For example you could also have said:

"Regardless we have a major problem in the US that other countries with better access to mental health do not have. That is incontrovertible."

Replace "access to mental health" with "access to welfare", "less medical debt" or a thousand other correlations you could cherry pick that all have the potential to be the true root cause.. Most of the data strongly implies that it most certainly is not the guns.

> We must amend the second amendment.

I agree, but I would reword it to take out the "well regulated militia" example (as it seems to confuse anti-gun people) and very clearly state no class or type of gun shall be banned... though I'm sure thats the opposite direction you wanted to go.

But hey as long as your trying to do it through the proper legal route of changing an amendment I will give you credit there.

@thatguyoverthere

Id say even extremely violent people should have a path to get their rights back, the key shoukd be recovery and eventually entering society again... that said they may have to jump through a lot of hoops to get there since thry woukd have to show quite clearly they have been reabilitated.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@thatguyoverthere

Yup in fact criminals already have big barriers (and i think its ok to make access to criminal records easier).

So by its very nature one would expect good guys with guns to far outweight bad guys with guns from the start. Which implies most of the protection from guns is going to be against unarmed people.

@mike805 @lmrocha @pj

@pj

If you want criteria on who can or cant own a gun get support for a new amendment. At the moment it clearly states "shall lot be infringed".

It has been shown in no uncertain terms that the 2A intended to include all people. You want to change it thats fine go through the propernlegal channels.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha

@pj

guns arent to protect yourself from a bad person with guns... not sure why you keep repeating something that everyone has told you isnt the case or what is being argued...

We have access to guns to protect you from bad people with knives, or fists, or a penis and muscles they intend to use to force you into submission and rape you... Guns are the great equalizer and to use them against other guns is not remotely the point, yet somehow anti-gun people keep repeating the same nonsense like a broken record to disagree with an argument no one ever said.

@thatguyoverthere @mike805 @lmrocha