Thread: Cost of firearms deaths

Judging by the text exchanges, hammers is probably being kind. @308.

Unfortunately the victim in this case likely contributes to the topic of the thread.

Originally Posted by Preacher

Judging by the text exchanges, hammers is probably being kind. @308.

Unfortunately the victim in this case likely contributes to the topic of the thread.

So by your metric, and 308's, someone who communicates differently to you is stupider than a bag of hammers? Just because they do not use complete and correct English I do not think that you can make the determination that they are stupid. That seems to be typical of the stereotype that fosters division. But feel free to sit on your high horse and laugh down at them, after all, that is is your right.

Yes, by MY metric I can, and will. Also sending "uncle" around to deal to someone violently, but nevermind that part.

Irony of someone speaking of high horses though

Originally Posted by Preacher

Yes, by MY metric I can, and will. Also sending "uncle" around to deal to someone violently, but nevermind that part.

Irony of someone speaking of high horses though

You may have entirely missed my point, but if you wish to introduce irony, perhaps you could consider that the thread at this point has been by and large talking about the inaccuracy of the media, it would seem although that if it aligns with your particular views you are happy to use it verbatim. We do not know what happened, nor do we know if what the media is reporting is factual.

Considering charges were proven in Court I would expect the media cannot report complete fallacies. Also the part where it states "according to the summary of facts" might be a hint

I have to say it may not be complete reporting, but when they report on a court case, it is generally accurate. The parties will sue for defamation if they are misrepresented.

Originally Posted by Preacher

Considering charges were proven in Court I would expect the media cannot report complete fallacies. Also the part where it states "according to the summary of facts" might be a hint

According to the journalists 'summary of the facts'. At any rate, we quite obviously have differing views, I am happy to agree to disagree unless you wish to continue?

No, I'm good. Summary of facts, at the point of trial in the Courts are simply that, agreed upon facts. But this is not what the thread is about so I will leave it there.

Originally Posted by Preacher

Considering charges were proven in Court I would expect the media cannot report complete fallacies. Also the part where it states "according to the summary of facts" might be a hint

Haha, I blocked that wilfully obtuse cunt about 6 months back

He just doesn't want to follow a train of logic

As much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking party

Originally Posted by 308

Haha, I blocked that wilfully obtuse cunt about 6 months back

He just doesn't want to follow a train of logic

As much use as a one-legged man in an arse-kicking party

Your echo chamber defines you then.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that such a flawed report/study is a mistake. It isn't. It's deliberate.

Us knowing it makes no difference. It is public opinion that counts.

A bad person alright. Deliberately publishes asthma and respiratory disease research reports too.

https://www.google.com/search?client...UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

I would like to see the study that correlates 'strength of firearms laws' with 'rates of injuries from firearms incidents' and see what that comes out like. It would seem from the numbers published the efforts to date at strengthening laws have not resulted in the promised results and at huge cost.

It would also be interesting to see what sort of stats exist on firearms reporting over the years vs the flavour of govt in power at the time, and the numbers of incidents recorded.

I would not be surprised to see the stats not backing up the claims here - as it seems that the numbers of incidents reported involving licensed and compliant firearms owners are not that high at all compared to unlawful use incidents. The other one I'd like to see is how the plan for new laws is actually going to result in an increase in public safety considering that the people who aren't complying now are definitely not following the current laws and past performance is the best predictor of future! But that wouldn't be surprising or useful to the narrative...

The paint and the picture will be 2 different things....

My take on the research is that it may stack up in pure science terms, but it will be misapplied by policymakers to construe the need for better regulation of firearms. If there was any interest in truly improving the safety of NZ, the research would consider each incident and whether the firearm was acquired / owned / used legally - that would bring context to the piece. Compliance with laws is at the heart of the debate. If people that comply are causing problems, then an intervention is needed. If the problems associated with firearms are caused by people who are not complying with existing laws, then enforcement of existing laws is probably a better expenditure of effort.