this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2024
1596 points (98.2% liked)
Political Memes
5217 readers
3345 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Yeah I don't buy it.
Gun buybacks here have been tried probably thousands of times, on smaller scales than at a federal level. They don't work. They get a few shitty actual guns and there's even memes around people making zip guns for $5 and turning them in to collect whatever money is offered.
What would undeniably happen is that much of the left here would turn in some of their guns and the vast majority of the right would snicker at the "libtards gibbin up dere freedums" while they buy more guns.
This isn't Australia, though that sounds like a wonderful place to live.
Also lol @ a 12 million gun "equivalency" when the US has like 320 million people and even more guns.
Let's math:
Assuming only 1 gun per person, which is laughably low,
12m/320m = 0.0375 or 3.75% of guns
Congrats you've collected nearly 4% of the problem from people who were not the problem. Were they the problem, they'd have kept their guns.
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.
Next time you want to cite a scientific article. Make sure it actually agrees with your stance first.
The "Harvard page" is just an advertisement for a book and some publications written by mainly one guy.
As for your Oxford paper. Omg. Thank you for the laugh. I'll review it for you in the following comments, since my review is too long for a single comment.
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.
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
Oi
Had you read the entire article, you'd know that AT BEST there is no real evidence either way with regard to more than half of those laws.
But I don't deserve your time or respect and you get no more of mine. Talking to walls is more productive.
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.
If you'd read what I wrote you'd see I agreed with a lot of the laws that worked, minus New Zealand's you dense prick.
I will not be replying further.
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...?