Time for yet another "Mass Shooting" thread

"Accidental" requires some definition. But, no, the gun does not go off by itself.

 

Agreed. Where does that leave all those toddlers?

 

Dead. Negligent parents/guardians/adults should be held as such. And probably dipped in honey and consumed by fire ants.

 

Maybe ASF should start a mass electrocution thread then, since that seems to be the real danger.

 

You may not like, or understand, or accept the explanation but I explained it nevertheless.

You want me to show you hundreds of hours of debates at the Parliament or to show you hundreds of newspapers to convince you that's it's a non-issue ? Quite frankly, I won't.

 

Maybe. He could start an asteroid thread, too.

Or a falling thread.

 

I invite you to repost it here in the new thread for all to see.

1. You can't. That's the point.
2. It's your assertion, therefore your burden.

 

No. It's easy for everyone to check on the other thread. But feel free to do it yourself if your want.

I can't invent something that doesn't exist.

 

To go back to the original subject and if someone is interested by that kind of stuff, here's an "official" video showing the moments before, during and after GIGN's assault and the exfiltration of hostages by RAID policemen in Paris. I say "official" because it was broadcasted by the Ministry of interior. It is quite weird because a lot of secrecy generally surrounds that kind of operations.

 

If it's so obvious and easy to see, then it should be a trivial matter to copy and paste.

1. It's not my fault you asserted something that is not falsifiable
2. I presume you have knowledge of everyone's private conversations and thoughts? The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, particularly since you are making fuzzy proclamations about "nobody complaining" (which, again, is a horrible, shitty justification that should be condemned).

 

If I claim that martians don't exist you'll also say it's not a falsifiable assessment because I won't be able to show evidences of it won't you ? You're the king of rhetoric or better yet you think you are. The problem with pure rhetoric is that it generally leads nowhere so I'll stop here. And I'll let you claim you won the argument if it makes you happy.

 

Whatever floats your boat.

Why would that make me happy? I want you to post an answer to this question for all to see and scrutinize:

Instead of obliquely referencing something that may be several pages and arguments back in another thread, repost. Clarify. Explain. Alternatively, post a link to the post or posts you think best show your position.

 

For someone who claimed to live in the actual world earlier, this is some rather extravagant magical thinking.

 

I was eager to read your in-depth discussion of how the study was bad, but your post was cut off for some reason. Can you re-post that detailed deconstruction of the study for me? Thanks. I really appreciate it. It would allow me to defend the merits and methodology of the study instead of parse out the meaning of a five-word sentence.


Also; free speech is not "under attack." A few crazy people committed an act of terrorism. If we responded to all extremely rare events the same way we respond to terrorism, there would be lightning rods every ten feet, the police would be disbanded, and lifeguards would be stationed outside every backyard inflatable pool.

On the other hand, people are killed by guns in a variety of ways, and two of the three mechanisms are suicide and accidents. Rather than encouraging the proliferation of a weapon that makes people paranoid, increases the likelihood of suicide, and also happens to be an instrument of terror, why aren't we taking steps as a society to remove the availability and existence of these weapons on the supply side? Is our demand to kill each other all that inelastic?

 

I'm stealing this as my new signature.

 

I don't think it would be very difficult (in a world without the NRA's lobbying arm) to place an exorbitantly high tax on the manufacture of certain weapons. You purport to be a libertarian; is the desire to kill other people as quickly as possible that inelastic?

 

Because, as shown in France and other places where they have taken quite a few steps, it's impossible?

 

If I am not mistaken, that already exists in the case of the AK-47 and similar classes of full-auto weapons. It may not be difficult to propose such a tax on other classes of weapons, but I presume that, even absent the NRA, it would be difficult to universally impose. The same proposal is working well for Bloomberg's crusade against pop, no?

I don't know what the statement has to do with the question asked.

 

http://www3.nd.edu/~jbrockm1/WittBrockmole_inPress_JEPHPP.pdf

There is the study.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/JPubE_guns_2006FINAL.pdf

Homicide is elastic. It is nonsensical to believe that we should not even try.

 

If Bloomberg's proposal were to tax Coca-Cola and Pepsi directly, than sure, they would be equivalent. Tax the manufacturers. Make it more profitable for them to shift business models and products.

 

Having people on my ignore list makes random posts like this especially amusing.