WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

In PA, when we turn 75w e must take an annual driving test or be limited to <5000 mi/yr

In CA, we must take a driving test every two years by our birthdate.

In the UK, when we turn 75 we must prove that we can still drive safely at 30 mph whilst drinking a cup of tea.

I just got my drivers license at 80 in Il. Good for 4 years. After that I understand I have to take a drivers test every year.

In US all 75 year olds must be able to drive 55 in reverse while enjoying a beverage in a can .

My dad is getting close 75, I know he drives better than me. Not all elderly are equal which why is I guess they have test.

Speaking of driving and safety, I don't know if it is a law but it should be uniform and across the states for people not to text and drive, or put on make-up. (serious about the first)

yeh, this morning my wife was bringing me home from the hospital and we were just leaving the parking lot when some asshole guy who was on his phone (could see him thumbin-which is a standard " driving while texting" gimmick). He just plowed into the IN lane of the parking lot (just as we were entering it) .
Bastard

We only barely mised getting T-boned by this guy. AND HE JUST KEPT GOING

This doesn't match up with countries who have strict gun control or low gun ownership. The US is # 50 on the list of suicide rates around the world.

You seem to be comparing a right with a privilege. False analogy.

Hmm.... no wonder you don't want accurate data - as long as unsound data fits your purpose.

Enjoy Parados:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Wow! I'm glad you avoided the car accident, and I hope there is nothing bad going on regarding the hospital.

got clocked by a steer hoof while I was driving it out to pasture. I was standing on a gate rung (the cattle gates are steel pipe size cattle gates. These were for buffalo I think). The steers came busting out and I didnt get my foor outta the way fast enough so he stepped onmy left instep and cracked a bone. It hurt like hell till they set it and now Im in dream lnd with some reaally great pqin pills. Its a synthetic morphine.
My typos are all over the mp but hey, Im high as a kite.

Ok I get it, it's a bit of a trigger so to speak and I get why it can be annoying. A brother of mine starts a lot of sentences with "but you HAVE to agree that..." at which point I usually interrupt to remind him that I really don't have to and saying that might help convince me not to.

But I used it assuming pretty much every gun rights advocate here agreed with the basics of what I'm talking about. I think we all agree with the larger concept of keeping guns away from people who are mentally unfit while being in disagreement over smaller issues such as how that is implemented or defined. Not trivial issues but nothing that detracts from a commonly held concept between us, which is what I mean, the areas in which we share common ground.



This is obviously an area we disagree.



I don't feel strongly about the matter like you imply, I just am not someone who sees value in states having different laws and while I understand that the country is founded differently and many might cherish these things I am not a traditionalist at all and personally do not see current value in the hodge lodge of laws. I would prefer that the US were one legal "market" because the current system is less efficient and I don't personally value the differences vs consistency here.

I think it makes entire classes of actions relatively impossible to enforce. Imagine if immigration were a state-level law and California could let everyone in while Arizona sought to keep everyone out. It doesn't work if states have no border controls between themselves. If you only have to drive across a state line to get a gun then it won't be effective against criminals.

Different state laws on guns would make more sense if states controlled their borders but as it stands you can't effectively prohibit any item if you can drive an hour to another state and get it.



I don't quite follow these vague analogies here but I prefer just one government and not 50+ ones. I find it incredibly annoying to do business in America and have to deal with so many legal landscapes and tax codes. I would prefer one set of laws and tax codes to memorize but alas I have businesses registered in several states, addresses or infrastructure or a "nexus" (could be as simple as renting one cloud server there) in dozens and am not even quite sure what all states consider me their resident and think I should file taxes with them separately.

I never got the anti big federal government thing in favor of bigger state governments, I see the advantages but just don't value them as much as the disadvantages, which are significant in my opinion.

Think of the US as Europe, but with more countries. Do you think Europeans would be happy with one giant government telling all of them what to do? How would France feel about the European Union telling them what laws applied to them and which didn't? Now compare those same laws in Switzerland?

There are free borders between all of the countries in Europe.

It's an analogy is all but it is kind of how I feel. I hate living under the supreme rule of the most liberal New York State government. My taxes are out the window and I have lost nearly every right that people living in every state around me enjoys... I have the freedom to move and someday I will. But, I think NYS should have it's own laws. We elect the people that make them so I can try to get them changed.

Did I lose my point in there somewhere? I wish I could type as fast as I think.

Enjoy the ride!

After my last mishap I was prescribed OxyContin. I found it to be an extreamly creative drug. I was out of town when it happened and had to take a bus back to my hometown. I designed my most successful product ever while on that enjoyable trip.

You aren't sciencing right. There are many other factors that have an influence on suicide rates, many much more than guns (e.g. economic, illnesses, suffering in general or the way data is tracked). Those factors can vary widely between country to country.

The hypothesis is that gun owners are more likely to due of suicide than non gun owners in the US (with the data on the case being true for youth more conclusive than for adults). The hypothesis is not that very different societies should see this play out in aggregate suicide data. After all different societies with no guns or with guns each can have very different suicide rates. This does not refute the notion that guns increase the mortality rates though suicide at all, it simply is a result of there being a lot more that influences suicide rate data than guns and that in sundry societies.

I get why it triggers your skepticism, I just meant that this is a subject about which we all seem to share common ground if not how exactly we would like to go about landscaping it.

We might disagree slightly on definition (I would err on the side of caution more than you on determining potential danger, as it is almost impossible to perfectly predict) but in general we agree on this kind of regulation. People who are dangerous or too disconnected from reality should not be able to acquire guns.

I'm interested in finding out what other common ground we all might have. For example despite there being many potential downsides what upsides might there be from using science to study the data? I wonder if we could, for example, better understand what kind of people are more likely to be dangerous. And could use data like this to better determine who should not have guns, lowering the false positives etc.

I wonder if you might consider, then, that saying "so and so is bad because they oppose civil rights" lacks critical nuance then, after all it is missing some critical qualifiers.



I don't mean you shouldn't think your position superior, after all you would be silly to deliberately hold a position you consider inferior to an alternative.

What I am saying is that invoking "civil rights" doesn't automatically infer said moral high ground. You can't just call the issue good and its critics "bad" because this would be the fallacy of begging the question. After all this is a discussion about what is "good" or "bad" as options.

And substantiating this ipse dixit with a mere label of the term "civil rights" doesn't improve this much because as we just established not all civil rights are "good" to you.

This is similar to your objection about the use of "common sense" in gun arguments, your objection essentially boils down to that it is begging the question and you are right.

However an ipse dixit that this is civil rights and the opponents are bad people is a horse of a similar color.



I think this is the ultimate truth and given the relative scale of the problem the data, no matter how accurate, is unlikely to sway you. However I have a question out of pure curiosity to see how dogmatic this position is.

The amount of non-suicide deaths from gun violence is relatively low as a statistical risk. It is also not something that many of these proposed laws would dramatically reduce.

So I get that reasonable people (with different axioms being logically consistent I mean, many will consider certain axioms to be unreasonable but there's no arbitrating that) will disagree on this.

But what if the numbers change. What if in the next 5 years it grows by an order of magnitude a year. Would that change your calculus any or is it completely inflexible?

This isn't really about this data being collected, I don't expect any big surprises from some more data on that level, I just wonder if dramatically different consequences to the liberty would change your calculus or if this is a liberty you would accept any cost for.

Here.... you can enjoy from the same page...