Yes it is. Why does it matter to the 37M people that live in CA that people in other states enjoy more freedom? That’s no reason to support any kind of restriction.
No. It would take a lot more than that to agree to registration.
If you look at suicide levels, the lowest levels of suicide seems to be in mediterranean countries and catholic countries. I don’t know exactly why but I assume its cultural.
And eventually, the suicide rate goes right back up doesn’t it? The Uk suicide rate dropped relative to other nations for a while and then it got right back in line with the rest of the world. So what are these others and do their rates stay low or do they revert to the mean as well?
I am referring to the AAP and their written literature that is distributed to their doctors.
I was saying to Bone that if he wants his personal family to be maximally safe, than what he should want is that HE has as many guns as he wants, but aside from that, for guns to be as rare as possible. After all, if he literally owned the only guns in the USA, then there would be zero chance of any criminal with a gun threatening his family.
More practically, I was suggesting that he should support things like background checks which might make it 2% more of a hassle for a law-abiding citizen to get a gun, but 40% harder for a criminal to get a gun; because that sort of law will in the long run decrease the number of guns in the hands of criminals, but continue to allow Bone to own guns himself.
Hey Bricker, I noticed you ran away on this issue. Too bad so many gun types cannot stand their ground around here! Seems like they’re all running off.
I think you’re extrapolating from a quick glance. Nepal is 110. Pakistan is 98. Plus, no one is suggesting we can zero it out.
I’m saying “making means of suicide less easily available will likely decrease suicide rates.” I’m not saying “forever”, or “to zero”.
If the US’s rate is would drop to Australia’s due to decreased gun access due in part to physicians saying “hey, I suggest that you make sure your weapons are secure”, then that is a good thing.
Are you just bad at math or are you bad at everything?
Granted its a quick glance and I was only looking at the EU/NATO/OECD countries.
I have despaired at teaching you.
It’s hard to say how many people actually want what. But I think that when there’s a really divisive issue like this, it’s important to remember that there are people who hold positions that are more anti-gun than you, but who are not exaggerated zealots.
Do you object to government restrictions on the sale of explosives? Really big saws without safety guards? Extremely powerful acids? Industrial-strength lasers? Cars? Houses?
Well, one potential drawback you might want to keep in mind is what happens if and when the pendulum swings. If at some point the anti-gun folks are in the ascendancy, and suddenly you’re saying “hey, we should compromise, let’s find a point that’s somewhere in between what you want and what I want” and they’re saying “oh, sure, you want to compromise NOW, but where as your compromise back when YOU guys were on top?”, etc. A scorched earth policy makes good practical sense, as long as you are certain you will ALWAYS have the whip hand, just like getting rid of the filibuster makes sense as long as you’re certain you will always be the majority party.
Noted. For varying definitions of exaggerated and zealots.
Which type of explosives? Firecrackers and Tannerite? Or more high yield? I can’t think of many civilian applications for explosives so I’d be open to restricting those, but low yield explosives can be really fun. I don’t know why anyone would want a really big saw with no safety guard, but hey, more power to em if they do. Acids…I’m not a chemist so you’d have to fill me in on the purpose of that. Breaking Bad style, or more like hobbyist? Lasers…Sounds fun. Cars should be a free for all, except standards when on public roads are fine. Houses - what restrictions are there besides if you have the money (assuming you are talking about purchase, not construction). Warranties of merchantability would still exist.
All of these examples aren’t necessarily on point though since arms have constitutional protection.
Sure, but you seem to have at least 3 different positions with respect to regulations-and-restrictions-but-not-bans…
(1) you don’t think the government should meddle in private sales of legal objects at all (a position which I think most people support in general but few people think is really absolute)
(2) you might support these laws if they were really constructed right, but you would never trust the government to actually enforce them
(3) guns are constitutionally protected, and thus even if you might support regulations, the constitution forbids it even more than it does for explosives and cars
I’m not trying to point this out to imply that you’re being self-contradictory, I’m just trying to puzzle out exactly what your position is.
I’m fairly certain what the current jurisprudence around firearms are currently, at the federal level, as well as in my own state (also at the federal appellate level as well in some jurisdictions). When discussing what the law actually is, that is a fairly concrete discussion in areas that the issues have been raised and settled. There’s always opportunity to revisit and overturn those, but that’s a more difficult road to hoe.
#1 - I don’t think the government should meddle in private sales of legal objects, but I know they will and to the extent they do it should be minimal, IMO. I hold pretty strong libertarian views.
#2 - You’d have to clarify “these laws” in that statement. If we are talking strictly as it pertains to firearms, then yes, I agree with that statement.
#3 - I don’t agree with that statement. It’s true guns are constitutionally protected, but that does not mean that the constitution forbids regulation. It does mean that regulation must overcome a greater hurdle than non-constitutionally protected things, like explosives and cars. The extent of those hurdles and hypothetical regulation will be the subject of debate - and litigation.
I don’t think any of these are contradictory.
Take for example, Missouri. They just amended their state constitution:
That would be a good start. It puts limits on laws that impact arms, carry, ammunition, and accessories (read: magazines). Compels the State to defend this law, sets the standard of review scrutiny. I fully endorse this new amendment (though I would say “person” not citizen).
Wait, you’re teaching me about measuring exposure to risk? Do go on.
For instance, you think that the proper way to measure risk from pools is the number of pools, rather than the number of times kids use the pools?
I asked - given two identical kids, which one is more at risk for drowning, the kid who swims once or the kid who swims every day?
You didn’t answer.
While you are answering, can you explain person-time for me, oh wise one?
This is hilarious, coming from the dumbass who doesn’t know what “controlling for” means - who didn’t know that given two significant predictors in a multivariate regression model, one cannot explain the other?
The same dumbass who doesn’t know what a significance test comparing two parameters would look like? Who didn’t understand confidence intervals around a mean?
This moron wants to talk about math skills?
Neither. The number of times kids use pools is relevant, but undoubtedly there are pool-related deaths for kids that were not “using” the pool.
The kid who swims every day.
Yes. And you are wise to ask. Confronting your ignorance is the first step before you can humbly endeavor to learn.
Person-time is better conceptualized as incidence rate. This rate is a single, merged measure that captures both the number of persons at risk of a specified incident and the time those were at risk. In this way we can imagine discussing twelve person-years, which might reflect one person at risk for twelve years, two persons at risk for six years, four persons at risk for three years, and so forth.
Now, when you understand that, let me know, and we can move on to population attributable risk.
Yes, undoubtedly, but that doesn’t change the nature of measuring exposure.
Exactly. So why were you arguing for using the number of pools as the denominator when evaluating the dangerousness of pools? Seems pretty stupid.
Bzzzt! Nice try, and shouldn’t you cite your sources?
Think about what you wrote. The INCIDENCE RATE? What is a rate? Think about it.
To have an INCIDENCE rate, don’t you need an INCIDENT? So, person-time is NOT conceptualized as the incidence rate. It is commonly the denominator in the incidence rate.
You may have heard me say “It’s the denominator, stupid” several times. So, the incidence rate is the number of incidents per person-time.
Dummy. Try copying from better sources in the future.
I wrote from memory.
Why aren’t you citing sources?
If what I said was wrong, isn’t that pretty good evidence I did NOT copy it?
Good point. As you rightly observe, it is not possible to copy something incorrectly. You is smart.
11th Circuit Court of Appeals upholds (PDF) the law in question: