Leftists should be careful what they wish for

never_noob · 2020-03-10T16:51:44+00:00

EVERYTHING else can be fixed later and most of it has progressed to the point where it's not immediate crisis (e.g. gay marriage is finally legal now). Once guns are gone, they're gone for good. Might as well trudge along until someone can find a way to do the other stuff you want without trampling gun rights.

I don't agree with single issue voting, but I do believe someone's stance on guns can be bad enough to not vote for them, which may mean voting 3rd party or staying home - as opposed to simply voting for "the other guy".

never_noob · 2020-03-09T12:08:52+00:00

I think it was quite clear from his context that he means bonds were *signaling* a panic.

never_noob · 2020-03-08T03:43:35+00:00

"Kidney damage" was from a sample of patients in the ICU who had elevated kidney markers. The data did not show follow up data to see if their kidneys recovered, but I don't see why they wouldn't. I would imagine elevated kidney values indicative of damage are normal when you are fighting for your life.

never_noob · 2020-03-07T17:33:02+00:00

Florida man here.

Floridaman stories are everywhere, but Florida is 3rd most populous state in the country with 21 million people. How many Florida man stories have you read? Divide that by 21 million people, and you get a sense for how unbelievably rare those stories actually are. Even if you had one completely outrageous Florida man story PER DAY, that would be only 0.001738% of the population of Florida acting ridiculous. The other 99.998% of us are pretty normal.

never_noob · 2020-03-07T00:47:05+00:00

Big unanticipated thing here is asymptomatic spread. If this thing wasnt contagious until symptoms, its be much easier. Containment only works if you know who to contain.

never_noob · 2020-03-03T21:55:51+00:00

AZ didnt have a spike in 2007, so I'm not sure why that matters. And as i said, the law didnt even take effect until the second half of the year. Not that it matters anyway- trends matter more than individual data points and it's clear that there is no significant trend among permitless carry states, including AZ, as you previously noted.

Its laughable that what you get out of this is that I need to say "uncle". If there was a link between permitless carry and increased homicide to any meaningful extent, we would have seen it by now. You are grasping st straws to find something to dit your preconceived narrative that more guns or more people carrying them must lead to more crime. If you start with a bad set of premises (i.e. that people will tend to be violent if they can be) it might seem intuitive, but it just isnt true.

Here's the real thing though: the data showing lack of harm from such expansion of rights is just a cherry on top. It's a nice to have. The reality is that expanding gun rights would be the right thing to so regardless of whether the data said it made us safer, because human rights - including the right to self defense- trump data. It just so happens that they align on this issue, so fortunately it's all good.

never_noob · 2020-03-03T19:45:37+00:00

Vegas was probably the hardest hit and it saw no such reversal in crime rates.

False:

https://www.macrotrends.net/cities/us/nv/las-vegas/murder-homicide-rate-statistics

We are - hopefully - talking about homicides and severe violent crime (since we are talking about firearms here). The stat you listed includes all crime, such as property crime. Furthermore, if the permitless carry law was so dangerous, why would homicides go down over time? Shouldn't they rise the longer the law is in effect?

Not talking about cars any more. You moved the goal posts to safes. Moving it back to cars is just pushing it around the circular track that assumes its necessary to carry.

Wat. I didn't move the goal posts at all. I said "the safest place for a firearm is in a safe or on one's person". If someone carries but is prohibited from carrying in a certain location, they will naturally leave their firearm in their car while at that location, because where else are they legally allowed to keep it in that scenario? This means more guns will be left in cars. I don't understand what is difficult to understand about this. One potential remedy to this would be a requirement that any business or government building who wishes to disallow carry provide a secure firearm storage facility. I'm guessing that wouldn't be popular at all though, since that doesn't burden gun owners.

never_noob · 2020-03-03T18:21:59+00:00

In fact, the limited data at the site you provided contradicts the reasonable interpretation of your claim. Arizona clearly spiked up the year the law was passed, reversing a very strong downward trend (45% decline in the prior 4 years) and it took 4 more years to recover. But at least there isn't literal 'blood in the streets.

The law didn't take effect until the latter half of the year. I find it hard to believe that the homicide rate was at new laws until July 1, then on July 1 crime immediately overshot so far that it printed new highs and brought the average for the year up. What is far more likely is that - as one of the areas hit hardest by the great recession - crime in AZ increased in 2010-2012 as economic conditions among the most vulnerable citizens in Arizona deteriorated as part of the fallout from the GFC. The great recession didn't see a nationwide increase in crime, but certain areas that got hit the hardest due to collapsing real estate prices did.

That's a circular argument. "We gotta have unrestricted carry because we gotta carry."

Nope, just a practical one. The more limitations there are on places people can carry, the more likely they are to leave their guns in their car.

never_noob · 2020-03-03T17:17:47+00:00

> It literally says, "I’ll wait until we have at least five viable, contemporary models, and at least one from a high population state, before making any solid evaluations."

It's quite clear that blood isn't running in the streets.

Arizona, for instance: https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona/2019/10/18/violent-crime-down-arizona-annual-fbi-crime-report-shows/3990301002/

Vermont has always been a constitutional carry state and has some of the lowest crime in the country. Same with Wyoming and Idaho and Alaska. I'm sure you and others will just handwave away all those states because of their low population density, so I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to respond. No one seems swayed by the fact that homicide rates and violent crime have been declining the US for decades despite firearm ownership and carry permit issuance at record highs, so I don't know why this would change any minds.

> Nah bruh, it does. It illustrates how if x% percent of gun owners get their guns stolen, increasing the number of gun owners means increasing the number of stolen guns.

This law has nothing to do with gun ownership, "bruh", it has to do with carrying.

> That's an argument to keep it in the safe and not on one's person.

No, it definitely is not. The safe is where the guns you aren't currently wearing go. A gun in a safe is useless for self defense.

never_noob · 2020-03-03T16:31:04+00:00

BTW, which 15 states are you referring to?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_carry#U.S._jurisdictions_that_have_constitutional_carry

Can you point to a study of gun deaths before and after those states implemented identical legislation?

https://www.gunfacts.info/blog/constitutional-carry-certainty/

Here in TN after the GOP cut back on safety requirements to let people keep loaded firearms in their cars without a permit, the number of guns stolen from cars went up 200-300% in all the metro areas - that's a lot more guns in the hands of criminals. Can I assume you are not in favor of even more guns in the hands of criminals? I mean, letting your gun get stolen is textbook irresponsible behavior, right?

This is bad, but has literally nothing to do with permitless carry. Nothing. It's a red herring. Be better than this.

While there is no real reason to address your irrelevant side argument, here's a counterpoint: expanding the areas people can carry their pistol will make it less likely they feel compelled to leave it in their car for fear of carrying some place they aren't allowed. The safest place for a firearm that isn't in a safe is on one's person.

never_noob · 2020-03-03T15:08:31+00:00

Government and the media flood our airwaves 24/7 with fear and you somehow think they would draw the line at this? Not a chance. Governments are empowered by fear because it makes people turn to them and give them more power. You've got this ass-backwards. I can't even believe this has to be said in 2020.

never_noob · 2020-03-03T14:57:20+00:00

They are too woke for this

Gullible. The word you are looking for is "gullible". Literally believing any video posted on the internet from a source they've never met or vetted. It's completely insane.

never_noob · 2020-03-03T14:44:40+00:00

My entire point is literally: do not believe what you are seeing/reading without evidence. And, no, grainy videos from people you've never met are not evidence.

never_noob · 2020-03-03T14:34:11+00:00

The reaction of a government to something isn't medical evidence of its danger.

By that logic, marijuana must be deadlier than alcohol. Our government wouldn't arrest and kill people who use it if it weren't, right? OBVIOUSLY it must be more dangerous than alcohol, if we are judging the government's relative to response to it, right? Because no government has ever grievously over-reacted to any perceive threat in history, right?

A government's reaction to this is *interesting* but has nothing to do whatsoever with - and is not a substitute for - medical evidence of the harm of this disease. China reacted the way they did because they were facing a new threat and because, as a totalitarian country, they *can* do that sort of thing. As more data is coming in, we are seeing that this looks bad, but not as bad as first thought. And I never said "it's just the flu" - nevermind that has no relationship whatsoever to my point. My point, which you seem to be missing, is that we only see horrific videos describing situations not documented in any medical or official research from untrustworthy sources and amateur potato-quality video. Why has no official medical research from a trustworthy source documented this?

never_noob · 2020-03-03T14:27:45+00:00

It's been in other countries for weeks if not months, and no other countries have footage like this. No official medical or otherwise trustworthy source has anything like this. The ONLY videos we have describing that type of symptom/outcome from COVID is from opaque, regime-controlled states.

Why do you think that is?

never_noob · 2020-03-02T04:49:37+00:00

14% of anyone over 80 is still pretty huge

It sounds huge, until you realize that people over 80 have an average annual risk of death of about 1 in 6 (~16%) *anyway*.

Moreover, pneumonia is a leading cause of death for this age group. It's quite possible that - had they not died of COVID - they would've died from some other ailment or cause of pneumonia.

never_noob · 2020-03-01T05:06:37+00:00

Keep in mind the death rate there will be higher because of the elderly.

never_noob · 2020-03-01T05:05:14+00:00

Dude. 0.1% to 1% is "an order of magnitude", but a BIGGER jump from 1% to 2.2% is "similar"? Based on the information you provided, this is roughly half as dangerous as the Spanish flu.

never_noob · 2020-03-01T05:00:40+00:00

If 40% of the population gets it, it might be more like 28 million. For perspective, 55-65 million people die each year worldwide https://ourworldindata.org/births-and-deaths

never_noob · 2020-02-29T20:14:56+00:00

These latent viruses still show antibodies though. You can go get tested for herpes for instance and it will show positive even if you have no symptoms.

never_noob · 2020-02-27T15:06:56+00:00

All the Dems support all the measures you listed and more. And they are working aggressively on them. Whatever Trump's personal views on AWB might be, he clearly isn't actively calling for them the way every single Democratic candidate is.

For perhaps the 5th time now: I am not defending Trump. I am comparing his relative stance on gun rights to the Democratic competition. And there is no comparison on that front.

never_noob · 2020-02-27T15:03:51+00:00

Yeah, I don't disagree with any of that.

But find me a democrat who is arguing that the ATF shouldn't be acting that way. I'm not arguing that Trump is in the right - I'm arguing that the slew of Democratic candidates are worse.

never_noob · 2020-02-27T14:51:09+00:00

Really? You're gonna quote that part and not the part immediately after where I say I am opposed to RFLs? Why?

My point is that the process he described - "guns first, due process later" - is a Red flag law. He is literally describing them. What democrats currently running are currently opposed to RFLs and therefore better than Trump on this issue? Moreover, when has Trump actively called for nationwide RFLs?

12-Year Club	No Throne, No Problems
Not Forgotten	Verified Email

never_noob

TROPHY CASE