Another Mass Shooting

I thought you said you had a business degree?

@wallstreetcappers

 I know you have studied up on it.  I just did not think it was your concentration?

@Raiders22

 Oh boy I think you have a serious elitist attitude just in the way you communicate. There is no empirical data there is no fact there is no undeniable proof when it comes to a discussion and a debate. You look at things in a way that fits your agenda and narrative and that is fine but you come off as closed minded and smug because you put down other perspectives and discussions because you feel you are superior in finding data that is crafted to validate a perspective. 

My position in this discussion is not to say that X sources of guns produce X ammt of the deaths in this country or in the world, that is how you approach this and it is flawed because the other side is not saying that the AR weapons are the culprit for MOST or ALL of gun deaths, that is not the discussion at all. You validate your position because of the slant you use about the topic when the discussion isnt about quantity so since you can prove that AR weapons are only X percent then blah blah blah, that is not the discussion it is not the point it has pretty much ZERO to do with the topic actually. Your mind is fixated on proving based on data manipulation that is created to validate and minimize the impact of the AR weapons. Same goes for the silly retort that bad guys have guns and bad guys do most of the killings or that people kill people guns do not kill people...this logic does not address the issue for the topic. 

My reply was that the social good of having weapons of this style and delivery is not greater than the harm they do period not that there are only X deaths per gun total deaths or that good guys bad guys or that gun education (laugher topic) is the answer...my view is the greater good/harm in society is such that these weapons should NEVER have been manufactured or available for mass society, EVER. Your side has answers and massaged data to validate keeping making them and allowing them, I say that data is not at all the topic and is not what is the consideration for this issue. There is no reason why these guns need to be manufactured and there should be a stop to any ownership or make of weapons that have the capacity and speed to deliver bullets in the way these do. The social good of having this weapon is less than the harm it will and does do...it is not about quantity or rankings or percentages at all. The gun lobby loves to minimize and your "empirical data" is nothing but a minimizing ploy to validate the existence and manufacturing of these weapons.

@wallstreetcappers

 We are never going to agree on the prioritizing of banning ARs.

So, when you get a second -- I really would be interested if you have any thoughts on the AZ/BUF game.

You can back of that approach it is a very poor way to put me and others down and it does not help you prove a point or be better than me or anyone else. You do not know my education my work experience or my level of study and skill in this area so please knock off this crap you keep pulling.

One thing that is very telling from you is the constant need to put others down using this generalization of being superior. Even if I disagree with you I will never stoop to levels like this to try and put you down or insult or minimize you as being inferior or less educated or less experienced or less knowledgeable. This is a large reason why I dont even like getting into a discussion with you, the regular snobbery and insults like this means there is no discussion with your type. You do not know me so do not make assumptions and conclusions which are unfounded and quite rude.

@wallstreetcappers

 My position in this discussion is not to say that X sources of guns produce X ammt of the deaths in this country or in the world, that is how you approach this and it is flawed because the other side is not saying that the AR weapons are the culprit for MOST or ALL of gun deaths, that is not the discussion at all.

Okay

My reply was that the social good of having weapons of this style and delivery is not greater than the harm they do period

The folks that like them may disagree.  But I am not sure that is the way you 'attack' that issue, by simply balancing good versus bad without quantifying it other than opinion.  

This totally ignores the vast 'bad' versus 'good' of all the other guns and crimes.

But good enough -- as long as it is clear that it is simply your opinion.

No one ever downplays a single homicide at all.  But it is easier to me to balance the totality of one against another.

But I get where someone can be swayed by the 'loud' ones promoted by the media.

Fair enough.  It is simply not my 'hill to die on', so to speak.

But I understand you have strong feelings on it.

@wallstreetcappers

I apologize if it seems I am 'putting you down'.  It is not my intention.

I prefer the discussion with you because you disagree on a lot of things.  I just did not know if you felt to delve into the intricacies of it. Because in order to do this -- you have to look into and use the data.

Just because I usually am able to back my stances up with data and numbers should not mean I am being 'elitist' at all.  I just like to back up my opinions when possible.

It is just when people do not do this they seem to stumble about and then it boils down to just one opinion against another opinion.

I do not even care to change folk's minds with the data.  Just simply to point out that I have solid reasons for mine.

But anytime there is a chance for a discussion on the intricacies of some esoteric economic policy issue -- I will keep you in mind and respect your opinion.

I just wish you would support your stances better instead of trying to demean someone that uses data to back theirs up.

@wallstreetcappers

 Now any opinions on the game would be appreciated.

@Raiders22

 Every reply you make is condescending and I dont think you can help yourself. You wish I could better support my stance and that I demean someone that uses data. None of this is true and all of it is your sly put downs and elitist attitude. Just because you feel a data set or source is great it does not mean your data is empirical, that it is superior or stronger or that it makes your point true and someone elses data and opinion false or untrue.

You think that percentages validate in this discussion and ignore other perspectives and pass those off as lacking or invalid due to percentage of data. The fact that ARs are not large in circulation and thus they are not a majority of deaths due to guns does not mean that they are fit to be in circulation, fit to be manufactured and allowed to be legal in society. Your data and statistics are valid in context of statistics only not in any terms of impact or social value. And yet you dismiss, minimize and swat away the concept that society does not need a weapon which has the potential and history of mass shootings, the social benefit does not remotely equate to the damage these cause and will cause in the future. The fact of bad guys having them or people killing people or that on a percentage basis the frequency is low (due to a lack of ownership percentage) does not validate its existence or dismiss the concerns raised from those nasty liberals who think the weapon should stop production and be outlawed.

In the case of money supply and government debt you provided outdated approach data to support your position that government debt caused inflation, I provided FED data and consumer spending data, I presented relative data which compared an increase of money creation to consumer spending, to GDP and CPI to show that the increase in debt and the federal reserve balance sheet did not translate to consumer spending and thus inflation. You did not even address these fact/data based truths because as I said above you are not interested in other data than what you present, you are not open to a different view let alone different data. You are stuck on data validation and ignore the fact data can be collected, evaluated and the output of data can be shaped to form a variety of conclusions depending on the agenda of the author.

You say that debt of X means inflation, that the FED balance sheet increasing means inflation. I stated fact that over the last twenty years the FED increased their balance sheet, the government increased debt very consistently with ZERO inflation, that cumulative increase given your data based conclusions should have bumped inflation at a much higher rate given the consistent increase of both M2 and government debt yet Biden gets your partisan blame for a meteoric spike which is impossible given the data and facts I presented, the past which I presented and the fact that this was not a move along the supply/demand curve but rather a shift of the supply curve inwards which caused the spike. The demand curve did not shift to the degree that inflation rose in the short period of time we saw. You also did not address the JIT inventory concept or the fact that the world economies experienced very similar and worse inflation. You skim over and dismiss pretty much anything that does not validate your narrow outdated data and conclusions. 

Then you go and say that I do not support my stance and that I demean other people, you are the worst culprit of both things and the elitist narrow minded attitude with the constant put down remarks means you have zero grounds to claim harm from anyone but especially me.

@wallstreetcappers

 Every reply you make is condescending and I dont think you can help yourself. You wish I could better support my stance and that I demean someone that uses data. None of this is true and all of it is your sly put downs and elitist attitude. Just because you feel a data set or source is great it does not mean your data is empirical, that it is superior or stronger or that it makes your point true and someone elses data and opinion false or untrue.

In writing sometimes you do not get tone, inflections and hand gestures, and facial expressions.  I do not mean it to seem that way.  It is frustrating when folks have an opinion and cannot back it up.

Total deaths is just about as empirical as it gets.  That is not being superior, just factual.

@wallstreetcappers

 You think that percentages validate in this discussion and ignore other perspectives and pass those off as lacking or invalid due to percentage of data.

Not percentages.  I am just asking what backs up your perspective?  Is it just based on emotion?  If it is -- fine.

@wallstreetcappers

 The fact that ARs are not large in circulation and thus they are not a majority of deaths due to guns does not mean that they are fit to be in circulation, fit to be manufactured and allowed to be legal in society. Your data and statistics are valid in context of statistics only not in any terms of impact or social value. And yet you dismiss, minimize and swat away the concept that society does not need a weapon which has the potential and history of mass shootings, the social benefit does not remotely equate to the damage these cause and will cause in the future. The fact of bad guys having them or people killing people or that on a percentage basis the frequency is low (due to a lack of ownership percentage) does not validate its existence or dismiss the concerns raised from those nasty liberals who think the weapon should stop production and be outlawed.

Doesn't this entirely assume that your opinion is correct and you assume what you feel is best for society, despite what others may feel.

The question is still the same -- why this issue?  Why this gun?  By your own admission they are not even widely in circulation.  

Is this the best starting point to fix the overall problem? If so, why and what is the next step(s)?

@wallstreetcappers

 In the case of money supply and government debt you provided outdated approach data to support your position that government debt caused inflation

I did not.  It is the latest available data.

Assuming you are referring to the guy's question on how much inflation was attributable to demand and supply and the pandemic issues.  I do not remember us discussing it.  I was just showing him the latest data we had that broke down the relationship between all of that and the lagging effects and time for it to cycle through the system, etc.

@wallstreetcappers

 You say that debt of X means inflation, that the FED balance sheet increasing means inflation. I stated fact that over the last twenty years the FED increased their balance sheet, the government increased debt very consistently with ZERO inflation, that cumulative increase given your data based conclusions should have bumped inflation at a much higher rate given the consistent increase of both M2 and government debt yet Biden gets your partisan blame for a meteoric spike which is impossible given the data and facts I presented, the past which I presented and the fact that this was not a move along the supply/demand curve but rather a shift of the supply curve inwards which caused the spike. The demand curve did not shift to the degree that inflation rose in the short period of time we saw. You also did not address the JIT inventory concept or the fact that the world economies experienced very similar and worse inflation. You skim over and dismiss pretty much anything that does not validate your narrow outdated data and conclusions. 

I think you are conflating very many issues here, along with the folks you were discussing this with.

I was never asked about JIT as far as I recall.  I am not a huge fan of it because it can simply be a huge single point of failure as we have seen.  This, to me, can be seen on a micro or macro level.  But I understand exactly why a particular business would take this route.  It is far better for them -- while it is working.  But the it bleeds over into a whole sector -- it has opportunity for disaster.

If you are talking about the guy asking about the influx of money -- yes, I put the blame on Biden AND Trump AND-- MAINLY, Congress.  Absolutely that was a dumpster fire.  But, as I pointed out, they were put in a unique spot and felt 'obligated' to do something.  It is just that sometimes the 'cure' is worse than folks think.  When things are on a fine edge -- it does not take a lot to push them one way or the other.  

I also, pointed out to him that the issues were global, naturally; but indisputably worse in the USA where they attempted to do 'more', etc.

So, I am not sure exactly where our discussion was -- I do not recall.  But I think you are talking about my answer to his general question about the inflation.  All of that, by definition, had to be using the latest data available at the time.

@wallstreetcappers

 Then you go and say that I do not support my stance and that I demean other people, you are the worst culprit of both things and the elitist narrow minded attitude with the constant put down remarks means you have zero grounds to claim harm from anyone but especially me.

I am sorry but it certainly seems true.  Look at some of the things you say to people and reply back.  I am never demeaning to folks nor call them names.  You call everyone DOOD -- I guess that is some new slang I am not familiar with.  Then get upset when someone says dude to you.

I have never called anyone 'moron', or told them 'it is time for them to grow up', or called them a 'crybaby', or say they made 'petty or stupid' comments, or 'been drinking' 'bizarre, unhinged', 'rude jerk'.

That is just not something I do.  You do it.  I do not have a problem with it because it does not bother me.  I always feel if you have to resort to things like that you are at a loss of where to go in the discussion.

But I do not think you should be doing it as a moderator.

Those are the things to me that can be seen as 'demeaning' to others and rude and downright inconsiderate.  

To say I am being an 'elitist' just because I have data that I use to support a stance and is 'narrow-minded' does not make sense.

It is just saying I cannot be swayed from something when the person cannot counter with evidence, only emotions.

So, I never 'claim harm' from anyone.  Because I simply do not care about the tactics someone uses in their argument; I care about their evidence more.

If they can change my mind with proof -- I will change.  That is the very opposite from 'elitist' or 'narrow-minded'.

But when you throw out 'trillion(s)' for a wall or 'hundreds and thousands' of deaths from ARs -- both of which are patently false and provable -- you are the one that seems  'elitist' or 'narrow-minded'.

Then if someone else were to use the vituperation you have, you just send them to the penalty thread.

That is the epitome of  'elitist' or 'narrow-minded'.

@wallstreetcappers

 So, if you want to discuss the topics, I just prefer to know why you feel the way you do and what you base it on.

This works the same in sports, as well.  Just saying 'I think' or 'I feel' is not good enough to make a reasonable point.

So, again, do you have an opinion on the game?

US children are more likely to be killed by gun than in car accident. Actually, gun is the number one cause of children death in the US since 2020.

18% of all deaths for children 1 to 18 years old in 2022 are resulted from firearms.

The Apalachee High School shooting marks the 45th school shooting in 2024.--CNN  

The U.S. Has By Far the Highest Child and Teen Firearm Mortality Rate Among Similarly Large and Wealthy OECD Nations*.

*Child and Teen Firearm Mortality in the U.S. and Peer Countries

Firearms mortality rate in US states with the  firearm law provisions are double than that of states with the  firearm law provisions, 8.7 vs 4.3. In another words, states with stricter gun law mark twice lower children firearm mortalities than states with loosening gun law, per above's KFF research report. 

But according to an article about stats posted on a website called Statista the findings that more people died by someones hands or fists could be skewed a bit like was done for stats from the 2020 numbers.According to a graphic for stats from 2020 regarding "Number of murder victims in the United States in 2020 by weapon used" shows rifle deaths at 455 and deaths from hands fists or feet 662.FBI data from 2020 does show that more people died of injuries sustained from other peoples fists,feet and hands than from rifles.But there is more you should know about that data before you use it to draw conclusions.

Statista researchers pulled data from the FBI's Crime Data Explorer,which does show that of the 17,813 homicides reported in 2020,662 of them were committed with hands,fists or feet,and 455 homicides were committed with rifles.So going by the numbers it would seem like more homicides were committed with feet and hands then by rifles.The FBI's numbers also show that of all the homicides reported,13,663 were committed with firearms of any kind,or about 77% of all homicides.Only about 4% of homicides overall were from hands or feet.

The problem with these numbers is of the 13,663 murders committed by any firearm,4,863 of those gun homicides were committed with firearms of a "type not stated," meaning law enforcement agencies didn't specify in their data reporting which type of gun was used.So according to this data over 35% of the homicides in 2020,the stats don't distinguish or reveal what type of weapon was used in the homicide.So if they did the same thing for the numbers that your article came up with,the numbers could be totally skewed.

@Raiders22

 I stepped out of course because a discussion with you goes in circles and ends up nowhere, I can and have written pages of replies and you circle back to the starting point and we go nowhere. You cannot dismiss any other data or perspective as you constantly do even in the above replies yesterday and expect anyone to want to engage in discussion with you. In your mind the point which has the highest statistical value is the only point to consider, that logic is for sure yours to have but it is not mine and not the logic of many. I am not interested in weighted flawed data because the fact a weapon does not cause the MOST deaths means it is suitable for society is absurd to the degree of insult. I stated the reasoning for my position and the silly position of many (which you ridiculed as always in your reply) and the fact that a weapon is not the largest contributor to death does not mean it is suitable for society. I stated a position and you revert back to stats as if that means the view is invalid and flawed or lacking due to OBVIOUS data. And then you ask for more data or WHY questions when neither questions add value to the discussion...its just circle back to your data pile and come off as offensively obtuse. 

It is super cool that you do not use words like DOOD but hey you are not at all in the mix with regards to the individuals you (again) minimize their contributions and only point the finger at the party who has to keep the drunk radicals from killing each other. So congrats sitting on your ivory tower looking down as you do and finding fault as you do, again it is a TNC approach that someone who has zero skin in the  game and zero consequence gets to insult everyone else, you do that very very well. This forum is the most combative, negative, divided on the site. There is not any area including the box that has the contention and anger that this does. A moderator cannot just stand on the sides doing nothing and there is too many topics and replies, too many personalities and conflicts to not have to dig in with the issues. In the past we tried the hands off more approach and every single time your group starts leaking into the main forums and antagonizing the other side. It has happened over and over and over through many years. The fact is that politics should not exist here and the sole reason why it does is so that it cannot exist anywhere else, it has to be isolated and FIRMLY moderated so that there is absolutely no impact on the rest of the forum. The passive approach you think you can imagine does not exist and when someone tries to soil me I have a full right to reply to it. Your DOOD remark lacked context, as usual. Your back handed insults and condescending digs are as always made and dismissed, you act innocent and OH I didnt mean that as if it didnt happen and you return right to it over and over. You insult people who are not providing a mountain of evidence when you are not the professor you are not the only say in how a discussion goes, your position is not empirical it is not perfect it is not the sole position in a discussion. No member is required to provide you a dissertation with defined variables to have a discussion with you. There is not ANY member who places the parameters of validity the way you do, I am not seeking your approval or validation of a position. It would be better if you stated your view and accepted others and seek to make good conversation and discussion. I would not be shocked if your approach to wearing people down in circular discussion going nowhere has impacts in your off line life, your style of data driven superiority is monotonous and uninspiring.

Unlike other rich countries, US continues to fail to protect children from gun violence a preventable cause of death.  Absurd to value gun rights over children lives.  But republicans refuse to acknowledge guns are the problem.  They ignore problems and oppose solutions.  However democrats see problems and offer solutions. 

@MrWhatsItToYa

 Yessir, very correct.  The researchers acknowledge the potential discrepancy with the FBI and, say, the CDC.  Their tracking is very different and for different reasons.

Yes, it is very true that any gun deaths are bad and something needs to be done.

You can look more into the auto/gun comparison for children -- Snopes did a decent writeup on it some time ago.  But the point is still valid that something needs to be done.

We just disagree on the root cause and the most effective way to address it.

@Europa

 See the above response to @MrWhatsItToYa -- it needs to be addressed for sure.

@thirdperson

For example?

@wallstreetcappers

 Yessir.  If you ignore the tarting point or do not adequately address it or do not have solid backing for it -- then I will circle back to it.

You cannot keep going if the starting premise is faulty or cannot be backed up.

@wallstreetcappers

 and the fact that a weapon is not the largest contributor to death does not mean it is suitable for society. I stated a position and you revert back to stats as if that means the view is invalid and flawed or lacking due to OBVIOUS data.

Yes -- because you implied faulty data at the start.  So, I gave you the real data.

Then I asked you to quantify your next point about 'good for society'.  It just seems emotion at this point.

That is cool if it is -- just say that.