Dasus

joined 6 months ago
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 hour ago

will get the mods to start taking action against the most blatant ones.

I've heard it from a reliable source, a Lemmy.ml mod, that there's simply no Russian activity on Lemmy. Would you like to know who?

[–] [email protected] 13 points 12 hours ago

Also why is there a Photoshoped hole in Peter Wellers crotch? Did that guy finally get sweet revenge?

I think it's a reflection and this is an photograph of a photograph. Taken with flash. A phone flash probably.

You can see the texture in the flash bit.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 17 hours ago

Oh... and pray tell which ones of the didn't?

You're conflating have objectively little evidence for a policy having had a large effect to that policy being the reverse of itself.

You went "hahahaha thanks for the laughs with that 'science' and pretended you've read the thing and that it doesn't show that gun control works, when ofc it fucking does.

Weird how you don't have any of that science you promised, eh? Almost as if I've had this same exact "debate" hundreds of times and knew what was gonna happen. So weird. Right...?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

Well, they can surrender.

Not all of them all the time, but a lot of them are smart enough to do something "dumb" like drive to a Ukrainian village to ask for directions and "get taken as pows".

So yeah, yes and no, as the answer to your question.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (2 children)

either way with regard to more than half of those laws.

And the other half?

Oh, someone opposing gun control with poor rhetoric and "I don't believe in your science it's not actually science you can't actually say that for sure something will happen".

There's plenty of evidence. You just choose to ignore it.

How does it feel to be against something that works literally everywhere where it's been implemented on a national level, with the excuse of "well I don't care for the dying children, I'm not convinced by these hundreds of studies all saying the same thing, it's not enough evidence"?

Honestly, it's sickening. It'd be different if there weren't children constantly dying of gun violence in the states. But with all your school shootings and you still parrot this shit? It's disgusting.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

"Well they conclude that these laws work, but I think they're invasive and STOOOPID."

Wow, SUCH SCIENCE.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

No, you won't be "replying with science", as you have none, hun. You might as well be fetching me science on how the Earth is flat.

It is beyond moronic to claim gun control doesn't work.

Oh I'm perfectly capable of having a respectful conversation with people — when they deserve it.

I notice you're trying to get your little tushy off the seat, but still haven't got any science. And never will.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Yeah, they do agree.

Your formatting gives me a headache, please learn to succinctly say what you're trying to say. Are you trying to say there's not enough evidence that gun control works? Because you'll be here "debunking" science all day, and yet won't be able to provide any showing that gun control doesn't actually do anything, or is actively harmful. Just like you nutters always. You get just so mad that you're on the wrong side, but you're too proud to be able to change your opinion according to what we know to be true.

What Do We Know About the Association Between Firearm Legislation and Firearm-Related Injuries?

Firearms account for a substantial proportion of external causes of death, injury, and disability across the world. We systematically reviewed studies exploring the associations between firearm- related laws and firearm homicides, suicides, and unintentional injuries/deaths. We restricted our search to studies published from 1950 to 2014. Evidence from 130 studies in 10 countries suggests that in certain nations the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple firearms restrictions is associated with reductions in firearm deaths. Laws restricting the purchase of (e.g., background checks) and access to (e.g., safer storage) firearms are also associated with lower rates of intimate partner homicides and firearm unintentional deaths in children, respectively.

Weird how you had to skip the beginning of the article, huh? Almost like... picking cherries, huh?

You're one of those gun nuts who thinks they're not a gun nut and has a false sense of confidence of their own intelligence, so you think pasting several chapters would make me throw my hands up in the air and bow to your formidable intelligence as I could just never actually have read the things I link, could I? 100 bucks says you didn't read half of that paper. So yeah; Thanks for the laughs and confirming yet again what I said.

Here's a quick tip; press "ctrl-f" and write "reductions" and read at least those parts. :D

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 day ago (12 children)

They don’t work.

Your local small time buybacks don't work.

Science shows us that when implemented on a national level, it's not hard to incentivise it properly.

Just like I said, you never ever have any science, just pathetic "no no no I don't buy that no no no no".

Come back when you have even the tiniest bit of some science to show. But you won't. You'll reply instantly, but without any science, adamantly stomping your foot on the floor about how "murica so special even science doesn't wurk"

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html .

https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

You probably won't even open those links, because you've decided you won't accept science on the matter. You just like bang-bang-sticks and don't care for other people, so... fuck science.

Come back with peer reviewed science, or sit down and shut up.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (14 children)

Yeah this is the exact type of bullshit I was talking about.

Australia had a very strong gun culture as well. Then Port Arthur happened.

They had a voluntary buyback program and got back what would be the equivalent of about 12 million guns with the current US population.

https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/opinion/australia-banned-assault-weapons-america-can-too.html

Like I said and I'll keep saying, people opposing gun control have literally nothing but wanna-be-gotcha shitty indirect NRA propaganda. Of which "no but it wouldn't work here in the country which is the only country which can't seem to figure out gun control, because it doesn't try it, because our country has people who like guns and I'm sure no-one else ever has".

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 day ago

I'm tired of people pretending they're for gun regulation while they're pretending "it's only a small part of the puzzle".

Like honestly, you feel gobsmacked in how you can have such high gun violence rates with similar mental health issues as countries which do have proper gun control and for some reason don't the issues that the US does.

It's purely about gun regulation ffs. Oh no, am I being insulting to someone who doesn't think gun control would really help. Someone who pretends mental health program would do more.

Fucking ridiculous man.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 day ago (18 children)

There is a lot we need to do, but gun control is only a small piece of solving gun violence.

Weird how other countries haven't solved these "other issues", yet have managed to curb gun violence.

"No way to prevent this, says only country in the world where this regularly happens"

Gun control works on gun violence as surely as antibiotics do on infections. Now can proper hygiene and a healthy populace make it so there's less need for antibiotics? Yes. But are they still extremely necessary exactly because of how well they work in bacterial infections? Yes.

Gun nuts never have any science to back up their indirect nra propaganda. Gun control advocates do. Here.

https://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html . https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/

I'll stay here to wait for any science at all, but it will never come. What I will get is angry gun nuts using shitty "rhetoric" instead of having a single peer reviewed study.

 

Just something MAGA-people seem to have a hard time with sometimes. Probably not as much when Americans are speaking to themselves, but as a non-American, sometimes it's challenging to get "those people" to admit that there is indeed anything wrong with the US. As in they won't accept a single criticism, and will loudly proclaim "America is the greatest country in the world", while wearing a "Make America Great Again" hat, which for me pretty explicitly means America isn't great, if it has to be made to be such again.

view more: next ›