Active shooter thread

[B00M 6465]

2 hours ago, Fudge Nuggets said:

Life ones before pursuit of happiness so it’s more important. Our kids’ lives are higher ranked than boom...’s pew pew pew fetish.

[Jatrain 288]

22 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Agree.  I've suggested 25 a couple times on this thread as the cut off. No problem with that. Also would be open to waiting period. As mentioned previously, I would push back a bit on revolvers and shotguns though, and try to limit significant waiting periods to semi auto rifles and autoloading pistols. 

What’s the negative to requiring a waiting period on all guns?

[Brisketexan 105347]

Agree.  I've suggested 25 a couple times on this thread as the cut off. No problem with that. Also would be open to waiting period. As mentioned previously, I would push back a bit on revolvers and shotguns though, and try to limit significant waiting periods to semi auto rifles and autoloading pistols. 

Actually, a waiting period on ALL handguns would likely be very effective at reducing the most lethal category of gun violence: suicides. So I’d be fine with it.
And again, safe storage laws if the gun owner shares the house with others (especially minors). Those two measures could go give a great ROI in reducing gun deaths.
But they won’t happen. And you know why.

[Anastasis 23484]

1 minute ago, Jatrain said:

What’s the negative to requiring a waiting period on all guns?

Revolvers and shotguns aren't commonly involved in mass shootings.  Brisket's point regarding suicide, which is often an impulsive act, is totally valid. I have not seen statistics on how handguns used for suicide are acquired (new purchase vs prior ownership vs lack of secure storage), but that would be informative. I would agree with safe storage laws being important. Handguns and shotguns are among the most common firearms used in self defense scenarios, so that is where I am coming from, trying to thread the needle between revolvers and autoloading pistols in terms of utility is mass shooting situations.  

[David Dennison 18947]

3 hours ago, Satchel said:

Then you say those three rights set the predicate for seeking independence.

Okay guys, one more thing, this summer when you're being inundated with all this American bicentennial Fourth Of July brouhaha, don't forget what you're celebrating, and that's the fact that a bunch of slave-owning, aristocratic, white males didn't want to pay their taxes.

[Bama Chick 28596]

This is a new one.

Those evil iPhones!

[chainsaw 9873]

14 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

This is a new one.

Those evil iPhones!
 

Idiocracy is real

[Jatrain 288]

1 hour ago, Anastasis said:

Revolvers and shotguns aren't commonly involved in mass shootings.  Brisket's point regarding suicide, which is often an impulsive act, is totally valid. I have not seen statistics on how handguns used for suicide are acquired (new purchase vs prior ownership vs lack of secure storage), but that would be informative. I would agree with safe storage laws being important. Handguns and shotguns are among the most common firearms used in self defense scenarios, so that is where I am coming from, trying to thread the needle between revolvers and autoloading pistols in terms of utility is mass shooting situations.  

That’s all fine but it doesn’t really address the question.  I’m trying to see what harm comes about from a (7, 14, 30 day?) waiting period.  Saying those other types of guns aren’t as commonly used in mass shooting ignores the fact that all types of shootings are tragic.  Self-inflicted as Brisket already pointed out.  Accidental.  Domestic Partner Violence.  Just because these things have become commonplace and don’t make headlines doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take action to reduce them.  

 

So in weighing cost/benefits to waiting periods, I’m seeing potential benefit not only for mass shooting but for other types of shooting.  What I’m not seeing is a downside?  You mention self defense, which I can somewhat see, but I don’t know how waiting periods limits someone owning a gun for self defense?  If a threat is known and is so eminent that you needs to buy a gun right now, it feels like the police should be involved?  

There is no single solution, but waiting periods seem like a low cost step

[South Austin 52611]

7 hours ago, Jatrain said:

What’s the negative to requiring a waiting period on all guns?

Reduction in lib ownership.

[Guest]

HR 7910 passed last night, with 2 dems voting against and  I believe 8 Republicans voting for it. It is an insane gun-grab that does crazy things like raises the age from 18 to 21 for semiauto rifles, requires guns have serial numbers, requires safe storage, restricts the magazine to 10 shots or fewer (with a buyback for those above 10).

In other words, some common sense regulations.

The age law would have prevented Uvalde as it happened. The magazine law would have saved lives in Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, El Paso, and countless others. This would make a marked difference in our gun violence issues and saved lives. It's already declared dead in the Senate.

Of course, my gerrymandered representative voted against it. 

[GW Hayduke 1953]

13 hours ago, MrBig said:

We need a system similar to the DMV where buyers of guns and ammunition need a license similar to driving a certain type of vehicle. 
 

That is exactly what Australia did, but it requires a mature political environment to do common sense things like that.  Thanks GOP and irresponsible gun owners who value their convivence over the lives of children and fellow citizens.

https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/133198/Licence_Categories_and_Firearm_Types_FACT_Sheet.pdf

[Bevo14 8378]

9 hours ago, Bama Chick said:

This is a new one.

Those evil iPhones!
 

[Anastasis 23484]

6 hours ago, Jatrain said:

So in weighing cost/benefits to waiting periods, I’m seeing potential benefit not only for mass shooting but for other types of shooting.  What I’m not seeing is a downside?  You mention self defense, which I can somewhat see, but I don’t know how waiting periods limits someone owning a gun for self defense?  If a threat is known and is so eminent that you needs to buy a gun right now, it feels like the police should be involved?  

I think that the potential benefits in terms of reducing impulsive gun crimes are intuitively logical. I also think that suicide is primarily a mental health issue and we should work on fixing that primarily through mh care, but that is a significantly harder nut to crack than gun control and a whole other discussion. Majority of guns used in crimes are not sourced from retail settings where a waiting period would be implemented, vast majority come from other sources (e.g. black market, see Table 5). I think "call the cops" is useful in a home defense or self-defense situation primarily if you need somebody to file a report for you.

Here is another RAND assessment, specific to evidence on the benefits versus downsides of waiting periods. Their conclusions: Limited evidence of reduction in total suicides, moderate evidence wrt gun-related suicides. Moderate evidence wrt decreased total homicides, limited evidence wrt gun-related homicides. No methodologically strong studies on impact on self-defense outcomes. These are not particularly consistent and compelling data to weigh the benefits/costs on these broader outcomes. So I think that there is some room for here for compromising on aspects of how waiting periods are implemented. 

 

 https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods.html

 

 

 

[Dahobbs 17682]

5 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I think that the potential benefits in terms of reducing impulsive gun crimes are intuitively logical. I also think that suicide is primarily a mental health issue and we should work on fixing that primarily through mh care, but that is a significantly harder nut to crack than gun control and a whole other discussion. Majority of guns used in crimes are not sourced from retail settings where a waiting period would be implemented, vast majority come from other sources (e.g. black market, see Table 5). I think "call the cops" is useful in a home defense or self-defense situation primarily if you need somebody to file a report for you.

Here is another RAND assessment, specific to evidence on the benefits versus downsides of waiting periods. Their conclusions: Limited evidence of reduction in total suicides, moderate evidence wrt gun-related suicides. Moderate evidence wrt decreased total homicides, limited evidence wrt gun-related homicides. No methodologically strong studies on impact on self-defense outcomes. These are not particularly consistent and compelling data to weigh the benefits/costs on these broader outcomes. So I think that there is some room for here for compromising on aspects of how waiting periods are implemented. 

 

 https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/waiting-periods.html

 

 

 

Your conclusion is misguided. Moderate evidence of a total reduction in homicides based on a very limited data (because the GOP doesn't allow these laws to go into effect) is more than enough to pursue waiting periods nationally. 

The fact that criminals have such ready to access to guns from illicit sources is a reason to enact greater control safety reform and limit distribution. It doesn't support the conclusion that such laws are not worthwhile. Illegal firearms are, at some point in the chain, obtained legally. We need to better monitor the distribution.  

[GW Hayduke 1953]

2 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your conclusion is misguided. Moderate evidence of a total reduction in homicides based on a very limited data (because the GOP doesn't allow these laws to go into effect) is more than enough to pursue waiting periods nationally. 

The fact that criminals have such ready to access to guns from illicit sources is a reason to enact greater control safety reform and limit distribution. It doesn't support the conclusion that such laws are not worthwhile. Illegal firearms are, at some point in the chain, obtained legally. We need to better monitor the distribution.  

Yep.

That data indicates "the law (waiting periods) appears to reduce the outcomes (suicide/homicide)."  Waiting periods obviously should be done - however, we would need a value system that values the lives of children and fellow citizens over the convenience of obtaining a firearm.  We would need more folks to be less selfish - more folks to live by the bible and tenants of what it means to be Christian - or shit just be a normal good person. 

To address criminal access to guns from illicit sources we would need to IMO a licensing/registration system to curb the flow of new firearms into the population and give a means to remove a firearm once a person dies or allows the license to lapse  - and actively remove firearms from the population through buyback programs.  Again, we would need more folks willing to endure a tiny bit of sacrifice - more actual Christians (instead of fake ass hypocrites).  

[Anastasis 23484]

24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your conclusion is misguided. 

I don't think so.  There are seven studies in the second graph related to homicide rates that do not involve domestic violence. Three non-significant studies are flagged as having poor methodology. The four that met methodological standards were split on the results.  Even in the positive studies, the effect size suggested is very small. My conclusion that the data are not particularly consistent and compelling is a fair representation of the data. If you want to criticize a conclusion as misguided, I would suggest that only considering studies with positive results in formulating the strength of the evidence is misguided. That said, I think that RAND has done really good work collecting and synthesizing the data, which is why I've linked their reporting a few times on the thread. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Anastasis

[Dahobbs 17682]

33 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I don't think so.  There are seven studies in the second graph related to homicide rates that do not involve domestic violence. Three non-significant studies are flagged as having poor methodology. The four that met methodological standards were split on the results.  Even in the positive studies, the effect size suggested is very small. My conclusion that the data are not particularly consistent and compelling is a fair representation of the data. If you want to criticize a conclusion as misguided, I would suggest that only considering studies with positive results in formulating the strength of the evidence is misguided. That said, I think that RAND has done really good work collecting and synthesizing the data, which is why I've linked their reporting a few times on the thread. 

Your conclusion is misguided because 1) Rand summarized the evidence as supporting a reduction, which for some reason you're pushing back on, and 2) you're failing to consider that the reason we don't have better evidence is because those laws haven't been allowed to go into effect (or have been poorly enforced on purpose). This isn't like medicine where you can run a clinical trial and account for other factors. You're expecting something that is never going to exist in this field. I also suspect you're just pulling your typical contrarian act and know all of this too well. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Dahobbs

[Captainant 27781]

24 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your conclusion is misguided because 1) Rand summarized the evidence as supporting a reduction, which for some reason you're pushing back on, and 2) you're failing to consider that the reason we don't have better evidence is because those laws haven't been allowed to go into effect (or have been poorly enforced on purpose). This isn't like medicine where you can run a clinical trial and account for other factors. You're expecting something that is never going to exist in this field. I also suspect you're just pulling your typical contrarian act and know all of this too well. 

He's whipping out some impressive doublethink to go from hating everything military industrial complex to treating the RAND corporation as gospel that he builds his entire position on. It's about as consistent as hospital billing schedules.

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20495]

Celebrating 20 years of thoughts and prayers!

 

 

 

[Anastasis 23484]

49 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Your conclusion is misguided because 1) Rand summarized the evidence as supporting a reduction, which for some reason you're pushing back on,

Look, this is kind of a silly tangent.  If you look at that forest plot and your take away of that is that there is consistent and compelling evidence, I guess that is up to you.

Here is a summary of the criteria RAND purports to use...by their own criteria the evidence being described is "inconclusive". Four high quality studies and split results between effect and no-effect. 

 

We did this by establishing the following relativistic scale describing the strength of available evidence:

No studies. This designation was made when no studies meeting our inclusion criteria evaluated the policy’s effect on the outcome.

Inconclusive evidence. This designation was made when studies with comparable methodological rigor identified inconsistent evidence for the policy’s effect on an outcome or when a single study found only uncertain or suggestive effects.

Limited evidence. This designation was made when at least one study meeting our inclusion criteria and not otherwise compromised by serious methodological problems reported a significant effect of the policy on the outcome, and no studies with equivalent or stronger methods provided contradictory evidence.

Moderate evidence. This designation was made when two or more studies—at least one of which was not compromised by serious methodological weaknesses—found significant effects in the same direction, and contradictory evidence was not found in other studies with equivalent or stronger methods.

Supportive evidence. This designation was made when at least three studies not compromised by serious methodological weaknesses found suggestive or significant effects in the same direction using at least two independent data sets. Our requirement that the effect be found in distinct data sets reflects the fact that many gun policy studies use identical or overlapping data sets (e.g., state homicide rates over several years). Chance associations in these data sets are likely to be identified by all who analyze them. Therefore, our supportive evidence category requires that the effect be confirmed in a separate data set.

 

49 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

This isn't like medicine where you can run a clinical trial and account for other factors. You're expecting something that is never going to exist in this field.

I am not suggesting that RCT level evidence is required.  This type of policy research is very similar in terms of study design and methodology to other types of policy analysis including health policy research.  Tell you what, take those forest plots, change the labels to something else unrelated to gun policy and put labels relevant to another policy type analysis on it.  Then put it in front of a researcher in the area and ask them to interpret the findings for you.  I feel pretty comfortable that their interpretation would be similar in form to mine. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Anastasis

[StassneyHorn 6638]

2 Uvalde Victims Who 'Loved Each Other' To Be Buried Side By Side

Annabell Guadalupe Rodriguez and Xavier James Lopez, both 10, would text "I love you" to each other at bedtime, their mothers said.

Annabell Guadalupe Rodriguez and Xavier James Lopez were sweethearts: They passed notes in class, texted each other before bed and made the honor roll together on the day they died.

They were killed alongside 17 other children and two teachers when a gunman opened fire in Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24. They were 10 years old.

Their mothers, Monica Gallegos and Felicha Martinez, told ABC News they had decided the two children would be buried side by side this week at Hillcrest Cemetery in Uvalde.

They told ABC News the kids’ friendship began on the first day of fourth grade. Annabell came home from school and told her mom about a boy who smelled and dressed “really nice.”

The kids had actually played together when they were just toddlers, and their families got together for barbecues not long after they became friends again.

The moms soon discovered that the kids were texting each other to say “I love you” at bedtime.

“Me and Felicha would laugh, like, ‘How do y’all know about love?’” Gallegos told ABC News.

Their teacher, Arnulfo Reyes, who is still in the hospital recovering from two gunshot wounds, said Xavier would make things for Annabell and write notes for her.

“It brings a smile to your face just to think they really loved each other,” he said.

Annabell was buried on Wednesday. Her family said in her obituary that she was a “sweet young girl” who loved the color blue, watching TikTok videos and spending time with her sisters and family.

Xavier was buried a day earlier. His cousin Lisa Garza said he was a loving and bubbly boy who loved to play baseball and dance with his brothers and his mom.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/uvalde-victims-xavier-annabell-buried_n_62a11e45e4b0c770989ba396?utm_campaign=share_twitter&ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

[Dahobbs 17682]

10 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Look, this is kind of a silly tangent.  If you look at that forest plot and your take away of that is that there is consistent and compelling evidence, I guess that is up to you.

Here is a summary of the criteria RAND purports to use...by their own criteria the evidence being described is "inconclusive". Four high quality studies and split results between effect and no-effect. 

 

We did this by establishing the following relativistic scale describing the strength of available evidence:

No studies. This designation was made when no studies meeting our inclusion criteria evaluated the policy’s effect on the outcome.

Inconclusive evidence. This designation was made when studies with comparable methodological rigor identified inconsistent evidence for the policy’s effect on an outcome or when a single study found only uncertain or suggestive effects.

Limited evidence. This designation was made when at least one study meeting our inclusion criteria and not otherwise compromised by serious methodological problems reported a significant effect of the policy on the outcome, and no studies with equivalent or stronger methods provided contradictory evidence.

Moderate evidence. This designation was made when two or more studies—at least one of which was not compromised by serious methodological weaknesses—found significant effects in the same direction, and contradictory evidence was not found in other studies with equivalent or stronger methods.

Supportive evidence. This designation was made when at least three studies not compromised by serious methodological weaknesses found suggestive or significant effects in the same direction using at least two independent data sets. Our requirement that the effect be found in distinct data sets reflects the fact that many gun policy studies use identical or overlapping data sets (e.g., state homicide rates over several years). Chance associations in these data sets are likely to be identified by all who analyze them. Therefore, our supportive evidence category requires that the effect be confirmed in a separate data set.

 

I am not suggesting that RCT level evidence is required.  This type of policy research is very similar in terms of study design and methodology to other types of policy analysis including health policy research.  Tell you what, take those forest plots, change the labels to something else unrelated to gun policy and put labels relevant to another policy type analysis on it.  Then put it in front of a researcher in the area and ask them to interpret the findings for you.  I feel pretty comfortable that their interpretation would be similar in form to mine. 

Again, Rand described it as moderate evidence of an overall reduction in homicides, despite very limited data because those laws don't exist on any wide scale. That's what we are looking for. Since we have limited data on these types of laws, trying to drill down into more specific subcategories is necessarily going to be difficult. You know that. And you know the reason we can't have stronger supporting studies is because these laws don't really exist on a wider scale.  However, that broadline conclusion is more than enough to justify implementing waiting periods nationally. Hell, treat it like a large scale study if you'd like (which is exactly what you'd recommend if this were medicine).

I really don't understand what you're pushing back on exactly. I don't think you do either. You're just reacting the opposite of those you feel represent the majority of this particular board like you always do. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Dahobbs

[elfenix 34332]

are we going to forget that the NRA, by buying just one congresscritter, stifled research into gun deaths for twenty years?

[Guest]

204 representatives -- 202 Republicans and 2 Democrats -- voted against a full bill (HR 7910) in the House that would raise the age limit for semiauto rifles, limit magazines to 10 rounds, require safe storage, and serial numbers on firearms.

199 representatives -- 197 Republicans and 2 Democrats -- voted against a standalone measure for raising the age limit from 18-21. 

199. Uvalde, with 19 4th graders and 2 teachers murdered in school, does not happen as it did with raising the age limit by just three years. And 199 people couldn't be moved to make that simple change. 

[elfenix 34332]

that's because republicans want children's faces shot off in school. 

[Anastasis 23484]

1 minute ago, Dahobbs said:

I really don't understand what you're pushing back on exactly. I don't think you do either. You're just reacting the opposite of those you feel represent the majority of this particular board like you always do. 

I was asked to consider extension of waiting periods from covering semi-auto rifles and autoloading pistols to also including revolvers and shotguns based on a cost/benefit analysis.  So I go look for data on the cost and benefits.  The conclusion I come to based on what I find is that there are not any good studies examining the costs, and the studies examining potential benefits are inconclusive. That aside, what is really needed to inform the specific extension suggested in an incremental cost/benefit analysis, which there is zero data to inform. If you are telling me that the policy landscape is too limited to do an informative cost/benefit analysis, I would be inclined to agree. If you are telling me that we need more research on gun policy impacts, I would completely agree with that. Look I am down for waiting periods on semi-auto rifles and autoloading pistols. In fact, I'd be open to longer wait times on those weapons than what are commonly being proposed. But I do think that some differentiation between different types of firearms wrt waiting periods is warranted.    

[fattyflattie 4638]

13 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

If you are telling me that we need more research on gun policy impacts, I would completely agree with that. Look I am down for waiting periods on semi-auto rifles and autoloading pistols. In fact, I'd be open to longer wait times on those weapons than what are commonly being proposed. But I do think that some differentiation between different types of firearms wrt waiting periods is warranted.    

He’s telling you he’s convinced he’s got the answers to ours problems, and that your data doesn’t support his feelies, so it’s incorrect.  

[Dahobbs 17682]

12 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

I was asked to consider extension of waiting periods from covering semi-auto rifles and autoloading pistols to also including revolvers and shotguns based on a cost/benefit analysis.  So I go look for data on the cost and benefits.  The conclusion I come to based on what I find is that there are not any good studies examining the costs, and the studies examining potential benefits are inconclusive. That aside, what is really needed to inform the specific extension suggested in an incremental cost/benefit analysis, which there is zero data to inform. If you are telling me that the policy landscape is too limited to do an informative cost/benefit analysis, I would be inclined to agree. If you are telling me that we need more research on gun policy impacts, I would completely agree with that. Look I am down for waiting periods on semi-auto rifles and autoloading pistols. In fact, I'd be open to longer wait times on those weapons than what are commonly being proposed. But I do think that some differentiation between different types of firearms wrt waiting periods is warranted.    

I'm fine with differentiation so long as there is still at least a week waiting period for any purchase. I don't think any category of firearm should be completely exempted. Any legitimate purchase can wait that long. 

[Brisketexan 105347]

are we going to forget that the NRA, by buying just one congresscritter, stifled research into gun deaths for twenty years?

“We can’t have new laws because there’s limited data on whether such laws work!”

Signed, the people who have spent decades ensuring that 1) we have almost no such laws that would even give us a sample of data, and 2) we have laws BANNING the collection of any gun data that might result.

Fucking brilliant play, I’ll give ‘em that.

[Dahobbs 17682]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

He’s telling you he’s convinced he’s got the answers to ours problems, and that your data doesn’t support his feelies, so it’s incorrect.  

No, I'm saying the top line data on homicides supports waiting periods. Subcategory analysis is difficult because we have an insufficient sample size due to only a small number of jurisdictions having implemented waiting periods. Further, those implementations are not uniformly enforced, muddying the limited data we have. The only way to get better data is to enact laws and then study the effects. Fortunately, we have a strong theoretical reasons to think waiting periods will reduce deaths AND have data consistent with that hypothesis that shows an overall reduction in homicides. 

You're out of depth here. 

Edited June 9, 2022 by Dahobbs

[fattyflattie 4638]

53 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

You're out of depth here. 

Ana pantsed you several times in a row, and I’m out of my depth. Fucking lulz. 

[B00M 6465]

5 hours ago, FirstTimeCaller said:

HR 7910 passed last night, with 2 dems voting against and  I believe 8 Republicans voting for it. It is an insane gun-grab that does crazy things like raises the age from 18 to 21 for semiauto rifles, requires guns have serial numbers, requires safe storage, restricts the magazine to 10 shots or fewer (with a buyback for those above 10).

In other words, some common sense regulations.

The age law would have prevented Uvalde as it happened. The magazine law would have saved lives in Las Vegas, Sutherland Springs, El Paso, and countless others. This would make a marked difference in our gun violence issues and saved lives. It's already declared dead in the Senate.

Of course, my gerrymandered representative voted against it. 

The 10 round magazine limit is a poison pill that takes this bill from having from a small chance of getting through the senate to no chance. That was either foolish or intentional. 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, B00M said:

The 10 round magazine limit is a poison pill that takes this bill from having from a small chance of getting through the senate to no chance. That was either foolish or intentional. 

Why? It's essentially a handout to gun manufacturers that also saves lives. Both the pro-gun lobby and the gun reform lobby should love it. Gun manufacturers get to sell literally tens if not hundreds of millions of new magazines. It also comes with a buyback so that the gun buyer is made whole. If I make guns, I'm begging for something like this.

And fewer bullets per magazine means a better chance of having a break in a shooting for someone to have at least a somewhat better chance to fight back or escape (can't believe I have to actually type out a statement like that).

And then even on the moving the age from 18 to 21, which was voted on its own, 199 still said "no." 

Edited June 9, 2022 by FirstTimeCaller

[Dahobbs 17682]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ana pantsed you several times in a row, and I’m out of my depth. Fucking lulz. 

If that was your take away, then you very clearly don't understand what you're reading. I think Anastasis and I are generally in agreement on this issue even if the conversation is unnecessarily argumentative sometimes (and I'm partly to blame for that). 

[fattyflattie 4638]

15 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

If that was your take away, then you very clearly don't understand what you're reading. I think Anastasis and I are generally in agreement on this issue even if the conversation is unnecessarily argumentative sometimes (and I'm partly to blame for that). 

Y’all were. But you were your typical pedantic self. It didn’t align with your exact thoughts on the subject, so you went all you in regards to it.  Your immediate assumption you can decipher the info best and everyone else is wrong, is just too on brand.  

[David Dennison 18947]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Y’all were. But you were your typical pedantic self. It didn’t align with your exact thoughts on the subject, so you went all you in regards to it.  Your immediate assumption you can decipher the info best and everyone else is wrong, is just too on brand.  

Why are Republicans so opposed to funding research into gun violence?

[bluto 4942]

26 minutes ago, B00M said:

The 10 round magazine limit is a poison pill that takes this bill from having from a small chance of getting through the senate to no chance. That was either foolish or intentional. 

The bill was broken down to where the age limit was a separate simplified vote from what I’ve seen. 
 

r’s are near unanimously too pussy to vote against gun nuts and a couple D’s are too pussy to end filibuster.

[fattyflattie 4638]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Why are Republicans so opposed to funding research into gun violence?

Dunno. I’m not. I’d love to see the day to day stats, particularly the firearms used to commit violent crime stats. 

[jimmyjazz 46138]

I don't have the time or the inclination to read that study right now . . . isn't the disagreement that Ana says the data say "X" but Dahobbs says the study specifically concludes "Y"?

Don't come at me, I'm just observing.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

2 hours ago, StassneyHorn said:

2 Uvalde Victims Who 'Loved Each Other' To Be Buried Side By Side

Annabell Guadalupe Rodriguez and Xavier James Lopez, both 10, would text "I love you" to each other at bedtime, their mothers said.

Annabell Guadalupe Rodriguez and Xavier James Lopez were sweethearts: They passed notes in class, texted each other before bed and made the honor roll together on the day they died.

They were killed alongside 17 other children and two teachers when a gunman opened fire in Robb Elementary School in Uvalde, Texas, on May 24. They were 10 years old.

Their mothers, Monica Gallegos and Felicha Martinez, told ABC News they had decided the two children would be buried side by side this week at Hillcrest Cemetery in Uvalde.

They told ABC News the kids’ friendship began on the first day of fourth grade. Annabell came home from school and told her mom about a boy who smelled and dressed “really nice.”

The kids had actually played together when they were just toddlers, and their families got together for barbecues not long after they became friends again.

The moms soon discovered that the kids were texting each other to say “I love you” at bedtime.

“Me and Felicha would laugh, like, ‘How do y’all know about love?’” Gallegos told ABC News.

Their teacher, Arnulfo Reyes, who is still in the hospital recovering from two gunshot wounds, said Xavier would make things for Annabell and write notes for her.

“It brings a smile to your face just to think they really loved each other,” he said.

Annabell was buried on Wednesday. Her family said in her obituary that she was a “sweet young girl” who loved the color blue, watching TikTok videos and spending time with her sisters and family.

Xavier was buried a day earlier. His cousin Lisa Garza said he was a loving and bubbly boy who loved to play baseball and dance with his brothers and his mom.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/uvalde-victims-xavier-annabell-buried_n_62a11e45e4b0c770989ba396?utm_campaign=share_twitter&ncid=engmodushpmg00000004

I choked up giving the eulogy for my 93 year old grandma a few weeks ago.

 

I don't think I could get a single word out if I was asked to speak at my either of my nephews (10 and 6) funerals if they were gunned down like this.

[David Dennison 18947]

1 minute ago, fattyflattie said:

Dunno. I’m not. I’d love to see the day to day stats, particularly the firearms used to commit violent crime stats. 

You really don't know?

[fattyflattie 4638]

1 minute ago, bluto said:

The bill was broken down to where the age limit was a separate simplified vote from what I’ve seen. 
 

Why can they not break each and every one down. It puts everyone on record where the line is, and would likely accomplish at least something.  Too much work? 

[fattyflattie 4638]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

You really don't know?

No. 

[David Dennison 18947]

2 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

No. 

 

 

[fattyflattie 4638]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

 

 

Ah, yes. No I understand that.  I thought you were speaking more philosophically, particularly about what the data would say in detail wrt demographic breakdowns, suicides, etc.  

Are we back to trusting the CDC?  

Edited June 9, 2022 by fattyflattie
CDC

[jimmyjazz 46138]

Why did "we" stop trusting the CDC?

Please don't say some bullshit about covid.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

4 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ah, yes. No I understand that.  I thought you were speaking more philosophically, particularly about what the data would say in detail wrt demographic breakdowns, suicides, etc.  

Are we back to trusting the CDC?  

 

2 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

Why did "we" stop trusting the CDC?

Please don't say some bullshit about covid.

What did Chris del Conte do this time?

[David Dennison 18947]

5 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ah, yes. No I understand that.  I thought you were speaking more philosophically, particularly about what the data would say in detail wrt demographic breakdowns, suicides, etc.  

Are we back to trusting the CDC?  

Oh, so you understand that Republicans don't want to look gun violence for completely cynical and self-serving reasons?

Cool.

[Satchel 6949]

8 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Ah, yes. No I understand that.  I thought you were speaking more philosophically, particularly about what the data would say in detail wrt demographic breakdowns, suicides, etc.  

Are we back to trusting the CDC?  

What American institutions are cons still allowed to trust?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

Why can they not break each and every one down. It puts everyone on record where the line is, and would likely accomplish at least something.  Too much work? 

They did.

https://news.yahoo.com/10-house-republicans-voted-raise-235748522.html

 

Lawmakers in the House of Representatives voted in favor of raising the age from 18 to 21 for semi-automatic weapon purchases in response to the mass shootings in Uvalde, Texas, and Buffalo, New York.

The 228-199 vote occurred largely along party lines, with two Democrats voting against the bill and 10 Republicans siding with the Democrat-led proposed legislation.

The age hike was part of a package of gun safety bills known as the Protecting Our Kids Act, introduced by Rep. Jerry Nadler, which was broken up into certain gun policies, including prohibiting the sale of ammunition magazines with a capacity of more than 15 rounds, to pressure GOP congresspeople resistant to tighter gun laws.

The different sections were voted on individually, and 10 GOP members voted on retaining Title I. Overall, five GOP members voted in favor of the whole package.