213
submitted 4 months ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 21 points 4 months ago

Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.

Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnadavis/2023/10/05/firearms-now-no-1-cause-of-death-for-us-children---while-drug-poisoning-enters-top-5/

There's a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won't find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.

But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won't believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.

You're emotional. You get so angry when you're reminded that you go against science because you don't have the balls to actually use your own brain.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

And you having "shot guns" doesn't make you an expert on guns

Oh yeah no, it doesn't bear any rationale to this argument. It's just there because gun nuts always default to the "you're just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that's why you support gun regulation". Nah. I love guns, they're fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don't have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.

There's literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.

But I'm sure the lack of science won't stop you, just like it doesn't stop Flat Earthers.

You're really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So... thanks, I guess?

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 13 points 4 months ago

Cry all you want big boy, the science is on the side of us non-brainwashed, rational people who understand the need for actual gun regulation in a civilised country.

I'm not the one crying, the 2nd isn't going anywhere, and neither are my firearms. More and more people on the left are arming themselves, and the gun control types are becoming a smaller and smaller group. The support you think you have is basically on echo chambers like reddit and here.

Too bad the US hardly qualifies to that group any more. Third world level literacy rates, so many homeless that human shit is an actual issue in supposedly civilised cities, and firearms as the leading cause of death for children. https://www.forbes.com/sites/darreonnadavis/2023/10/05/firearms-now-no-1-cause-of-death-for-us-children---while-drug-poisoning-enters-top-5/

First, I'm all for social programs, ending the war on drugs, mental health, single payer healthcare and increasing our funding to education.

Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren't driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.

There's a literal mountai in the of evidence showing that all you need to do to start facing this problem is reasonable nation-wide gun regulation. Something everyone knows works and something that you won't find science against, because gun regulation being the answer is as clear to most people as is the fact that the Earth is round, not Flat.

Tell that to mexico or Brazil, you also forget that all the places you love to claim have lower gun violence are places with social support for their citizens.

But you will find Flat Earther crazies who won't believe in the science even when their own science proves that they are indeed wrong.

Not even in the same ballpark.

You're emotional. You get so angry when you're reminded that you go against science because you don't have the balls to actually use your own brain.

Lol yea... I'm the angry one here.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

Doesn't seem to be loading for me

Oh yeah no, it doesn't bear any rationale to this argument. It's just there because gun nuts always default to the "you're just afraid of my pew-pew sticks, that's why you support gun regulation". Nah. I love guns, they're fun. But you know what I care more about than loud bangs? That children don't have to live in fear of some incel fucktards charging into their school with a pimped out AR15 with a bumpstock.

The problem here is, you don't seem to care that kids die, just how they die. Most murders happen with handguns. In fact, murders with ar15s are so rare they're just included into all rifle deaths, because they're statistically pointless.

There's literally not a single peer reviewed study that concludes that less gun control is better, for anything.

That's not how the second amendment works, it's not there to reduce our violence. It's there to stop a tyrannical gov....one of which seems to be coming more and more everyday. Do you just ignore the shit that's coming out of trump and his ilks mouth?

But I'm sure the lack of science won't stop you, just like it doesn't stop Flat Earthers.

Statistics are what I look at. Which is why you thinking another bumpstock or AWB would do anything is hilarious.

You're really just here to prove my point about the willfull ignorance of nuts like you. So... thanks, I guess?

Yes I'm the nut.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 4 months ago

Second, firearms is not the leading cause of death for children. It was during covid because of how many people weren't driving and how depressed people got from being stuck inside and not being able to socialize.

Look up the definition of children used here. Also look at suicide and homicides as part of that larger number. There's a lot of context that points to the fact that the root cause (obviously) isn't the tool, but the system the tools exist in.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

Yep, they include usually all the way to 19 years old as a child.

[-] butwhyishischinabook@lemmy.world 5 points 4 months ago

People like them reek of the sheltered-liberal-20-year-old mindset of "the system is almost perfect, is we just make a couple of tweaks here and there it'll be fine." As if firearm restrictions alone will address socioeconomic ossification, the lack of meaningful state protection of vulnerable populations, deep resentment of minorities in homogenous, conservative areas, etc. Whining about how dumb people who hate guns less than they do are lets them get away with not doing the difficult work of addressing deep-rooted structural injustices. Fucking weak.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

Works literally everywhere where reasonable gun regulation has been implemented on a national level.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You follow narrative, we follow science.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

No, no it doesn't. Everywhere that has gun control also has social safety nets... everywhere they have gun control and no safety nets, its bad. Brazil and Mexico.... please explain those two countries which have very high firearm homicides but the gun laws there basically ban civilians from owning firearms.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

No, no it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

Refusing to believe science, asserting your bullshit as more credible than Harvard and Oxford.

Always the same.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

My facts are from actual facts. As I asked before, please tell me why Brazil and Mexico has worse gun crime than the USA, but has basically banned civilian ownership?

Your "science" isn't anything more than emotional bullshit.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 2 points 4 months ago

What you're doing is crying a lot, denying the actual studies which have been done in, among other countries, Brazil.

You've never read a single one, because people like you never do. Instead you think your making aa good case by calling Harvard and Oxford studies "emotional bullshit" while thinking the garbage you pull out of your arse are "facts, my facts are real facts".

You seriously think you're gonna "debunk" large peer reviewed studies by the world's most esteemed universities by going "b-b-but w-what about B-Brazil..?!" (It's called whataboutism, a rather childish propaganda tactic.)

Since the studies are too hard for you to read:

Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000.

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

You're never going to admit you're wrong, no matter how bad it gets in your shithole of a country. Why is that? Wouldn't it be better to admit how fucked up it is, to start fixing it? Or do you just like living in an unsafe shithole?

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

What you're doing is crying a lot, denying the actual studies which have been done in, among other countries, Brazil.

Where do you seem me crying? I'm not the one crying about guns, and screaming "think of the children"...you anti-2a groups are literally emotionally driven and actually do cry a lot about gun rights.

You've never read a single one, because people like you never do. Instead you think your making aa good case by calling Harvard and Oxford studies "emotional bullshit" while thinking the garbage you pull out of your arse are "facts, my facts are real facts".

I've read all of these studies, they're all designed to show that guns magically make people more violent and we should ban them completely. This isn't news. The facts I use are from statistics from the FBI, statistics don't lie.

You seriously think you're gonna "debunk" large peer reviewed studies by the world's most esteemed universities by going "b-b-but w-what about B-Brazil..?!" (It's called whataboutism, a rather childish propaganda tactic.)

These studies aren't actual studies, they're collections of data that are correlationed to make gun ownership look bad. And I'm not the one that continually brings up other nations that have safety nets and gun control and say "what about this euro nation"...

Since the studies are too hard for you to read:

Within the US, gun violence varies widely. Age-adjusted firearm homicide rates range from a high of 14.4 per 100,000 in Washington, DC, to a low of 1.1 per 100,000 in New Hampshire. Washington, DC’s rate is similar to those of Brazil and Jamaica, which rank ninth and tenth globally. New Hampshire’s rate is similar to that of Chile. Even though New Hampshire has the lowest rates of age-adjusted firearm homicides in the US, its rate is still three times greater than the highest rate in Europe – Cyprus, with 0.36 deaths per 100,000.

Cool, thanks for proving my point. Gun laws in Brazil are some of the strictest in the world, yet they have the same firearm homicide rate as DC does... sounds like the laws banning people from owning firearms aren't working.

https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/insights-blog/acting-data/gun-violence-united-states-outlier

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/2/16399418/america-mass-shooting-gun-violence-statistics-charts

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

You're never going to admit you're wrong, no matter how bad it gets in your shithole of a country. Why is that? Wouldn't it be better to admit how fucked up it is, to start fixing it? Or do you just like living in an unsafe shithole?

O... you're not even from the USA...my shithole country is my country, worry about your own.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

The facts I use are from statistics from the FBI, statistics don't lie

How would the FBI have any data on nationally implemented gun control? Perhaps by reading studied from Oxford and Harvard.

What you're doing again is crying instead of having any science on your side, even your "FBI facts."

This "argument" is exactly what I meant when I was calling for a gun nut to come show their insanity.

You have a tantrum, deny the science and then say things like "sounds like their policies didn't work", when you still refuse to ACTUALLY READ the study and can't provide anything against it.

Cry cry cry. Zero science. Like always.

Yeah, see I'm from an actual first world country, we have good education, so I understand empathy and how interconnected the global community is. But you don't even care about your own children getting massacred. How utterly disgusting.

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 4 months ago

How would the FBI have any data on nationally implemented gun control? Perhaps by reading studied from Oxford and Harvard.

ROFL the FBI provides the numbers to the public lol they do not get shit from oxford or Harvard lol fucking hell... I don't even know why I'm arguing with you. You're not even from here lol

What you're doing again is crying instead of having any science on your side, even your "FBI facts."

Lol

This "argument" is exactly what I meant when I was calling for a gun nut to come show their insanity.

Lol

You have a tantrum, deny the science and then say things like "sounds like their policies didn't work", when you still refuse to ACTUALLY READ the study and can't provide anything against it.

Yea ok mr "the fbi gets it's numbers from Oxford and Harvard" ROFL

Cry cry cry. Zero science. Like always.

Lol

Yeah, see I'm from an actual first world country, we have good education, so I understand empathy and how interconnected the global community is. But you don't even care about your own children getting massacred. How utterly disgusting.

O no the emotional bullshit shines. You keep to your side of the pond and I'll keep to mine.

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 points 4 months ago

Science isn't on your side. Science is pretty quiet on ethics and human rights.

We pay a cost for all of our rights. None of them are free or without a body count, even if only in opportunity cost.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 6 points 4 months ago

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

Like I said, unfortunately for you, we rational people have all the science backing us up. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Show any science backing up anything saying gun control wouldn't help with the violence issue. Or is your argument now "I'm willing to allow children to be massacred on a weekly basis in practice with the excuse to allowing it to continue will perhaps serve a purpose for some fictional scenario I've been fantasising about"?

Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?

[-] PsychedSy@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 months ago

The science supports the effectiveness of rights violations? Neato. I'm sure we could find other 'science backed solutions' if we don't consider rights in the analysis.

There are things we can do to address genuine root causes of different types of firearm-related violence. Banning guns, leaving all those young people in horrible situations because you refuse to analyze the situation and patting yourself on the back sounds about right, though.

Because letting children die instead of just using sensible gun regulations like most of the world is a must in case you need to try another jan 6th, huh?

It's possible to disagree with someone without being a dick. Try it some time.

[-] Dasus@lemmy.world 3 points 4 months ago

The science supports the effectiveness of rights violations?

Do you honestly think everyone having access to a firearm is a fundamental human right?

Because… it very much isn’t.

For more about those, you can read on

https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights

And here, in a listed format, and you’ll very much notice the absence of being armed.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/universal-declaration-of-human-rights/

Let’s take article 3 as an example of a fundamental human right.

Everyone has the right to life (and to live in freedom and safety).

Do you think the US would manage to better protect that right if they accepted the actual science on the issue, rhe one which proves people would be safer and there’d be less gun violence if reasonable regulation was instilled on a national level?

Hope this helps, because people like you need to be helped so we can help ensure better fundamental human rights in the US.

this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2024
213 points (100.0% liked)

News

23274 readers
2946 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS