The Rhode Island police have nothing, and the information they're giving to the public isn't helpful, at all.

2 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Right it increased the rate at which gun deaths dropped even though you tried to claim it was the same. It wasn't. They also passed several significant gun laws in the 80s after a few mass shootings. They were just state based whereas but major registration and licensing changes, mandatory training programs, a lot of the same stuff the 96 laws made federal. So I'm not sure you're helping your argument here.

The 96 Australian gun law impact has been studied in depth by the likes of the NIH and JAMA. The same difference is seen in European countries with stricter gun laws vs those that don't. And in the US states with stricter gun laws. I don't know why you're fighting the obvious so strongly. You can be pro 2A and still recognize there is a pretty clear downside as well.

Yeah, I always enjoy it when an NIH study opens up by noting that mass shootings are less than 1% of firearm related deaths, and then try to explain that the bans are somehow anything other than performative.

Counterpoint regarding JAMA and the NIH is the DOJ study showing that the ‘94 ban had no measurable impact.

1 hour ago, Bill said:

Yeah, I always enjoy it when an NIH study opens up by noting that mass shootings are less than 1% of firearm related deaths, and then try to explain that the bans are somehow anything other than performative.

Counterpoint regarding JAMA and the NIH is the DOJ study showing that the ‘94 ban had no measurable impact.

First of all of virtually eliminating mass shooting in a country is "performative" then wouldn't advocating people to carry because they can disrupt mass shootings like you suggested be the same? Especially since that it is, by the numbers, far less effective.

Second of all it probably says that because it looked at a lot of factors beyond just mass shootings? Like suicide and homicide rates, and also looked to see if there was a corresponding increase in homicide and suicide by other means to compensate and couldn't find one?

I can't seem to find anything from the DOJ saying what you're saying, but even if it exists, yes data coming from several of the largest and most well respected research groups in the country as well as virtually every news organization on the planet holds more weight than an isolated (likely very outdated) report from the DOJ. Again this is MAGA level thinking clinging on to every scrap of evidence that reinforced your point while ignoring the overwhelming data that contradicts it. It's beneath you.

2 hours ago, The_Omega said:

The Rhode Island police have nothing, and the information they're giving to the public isn't helpful, at all.

Yeah the lack of details is annoying. A lot of local schools are shut down even tomorrow

54 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

First of all of virtually eliminating mass shooting in a country is "performative" then wouldn't advocating people to carry because they can disrupt mass shootings like you suggested be the same? Especially since that it is, by the numbers, far less effective.

Second of all it probably says that because it looked at a lot of factors beyond just mass shootings? Like suicide and homicide rates, and also looked to see if there was a corresponding increase in homicide and suicide by other means to compensate and couldn't find one?

I can't seem to find anything from the DOJ saying what you're saying, but even if it exists, yes data coming from several of the largest and most well respected research groups in the country as well as virtually every news organization on the planet holds more weight than an isolated (likely very outdated) report from the DOJ. Again this is MAGA level thinking clinging on to every scrap of evidence that reinforced your point while ignoring the overwhelming data that contradicts it. It's beneath you.

Shockingly the shooter appears to be a fat loser

Trump's response to Mass shootings.

Make it easier to buy guns and cut funding for mental health treatment for kids. Pure genius. Maga loves a good mass shooting.

14 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

First of all of virtually eliminating mass shooting in a country is "performative" then wouldn't advocating people to carry because they can disrupt mass shootings like you suggested be the same? Especially since that it is, by the numbers, far less effective.

Second of all it probably says that because it looked at a lot of factors beyond just mass shootings? Like suicide and homicide rates, and also looked to see if there was a corresponding increase in homicide and suicide by other means to compensate and couldn't find one?

No because a defensive gun use isn’t limited to stopping one type of crime.

16 hours ago, The_Omega said:

The Rhode Island police have nothing, and the information they're giving to the public isn't helpful, at all.

Eh I mean in an ongoing investigation you really only want the public to have enough details to help you find the guy, but not too much that jeopardizes the investigation.

Plus you run the risk of idiot sleuths coming together on the internet to identify the wrong guy. (See also: Reddit solves the Boston marathon attack.)

3 minutes ago, Bill said:

No because a defensive gun use isn’t limited to stopping one type of crime.

Nor are gun regulations. Both non mass homicide and suicide rates were also studied.

2 hours ago, jsdarkstar said:

Trump's response to Mass shootings.

Make it easier to buy guns and cut funding for mental health treatment for kids. Pure genius. Maga loves a good mass shooting.

Mass shootings are good for Republican business. People cling to their guns and stock up after a mass shooting.

5 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Shockingly the shooter appears to be a fat loser

Yeah but you can’t see his face. It could be any one of us.

MIT physics professor killed in his home in Brookline. About an hour away from the shooting at Brown Engineering department. Probably unrelated but at the very least a weird coincidence.

18 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

First of all of virtually eliminating mass shooting in a country is "performative" then wouldn't advocating people to carry because they can disrupt mass shootings like you suggested be the same? Especially since that it is, by the numbers, far less effective.

I know I'm talking to a libtard, but one of those ideas infringes upon a constitutional right and the other does not.

1 hour ago, Kz! said:

I know I'm talking to a libtard, but one of those ideas infringes upon a constitutional right and the other does not.

And I know I'm talking to a University of Phoenix online dropout, but we're talking about Australia. Which is in fact a different country with a different constitution.

9 minutes ago, DEagle7 said:

And I know I'm talking to a University of Phoenix online dropout, but we're talking about Australia. Which is in fact a different country with a different constitution.

Right, it comes down to whether you believe in property and individual rights. You clearly don't, which is why you're a libtard.

24 minutes ago, Kz! said:

Right, it comes down to whether you believe in property and individual rights. You clearly don't, which is why you're a libtard.

Which maybe might be relevant to this discussion if gun ownership was a right in Australia, and Bill and I were both retarded. But it isn't, and we're not, so it's not.

Nice try though little buddy

Clearly a cover up in the Brown shooting.

On 12/14/2025 at 7:07 PM, BDawk_ASamuel said:

Religion of peace strikes again.

On 12/14/2025 at 7:54 PM, DrPhilly said:

You can always count on it sooner or later

22 minutes ago, Procus said:

Clearly a cover up in the Brown shooting.

Might want to stretch those scolding muscles now @DrPhilly .

It's Brown. It's basically what would happen if you combined UC Berkley with Harvard. I'm willing to bet 90+% of the students are "Free Palestine" types.

6 hours ago, DEagle7 said:

Nor are gun regulations. Both non mass homicide and suicide rates were also studied.

Any change in suicide rates through gun control is wishful thinking. Suicide is more a mental health via culture problem than it is a tool used to do the job problem. For example, South Korea has some of the strictest gun control laws, yet the highest levels of suicide. Taking a tool away isn’t going to take away the mental illness behind the drive. I took a look at one of the studies from the NIH from 2024, and it showed that there was only limited to moderate evidence of restrictions that led to a decrease in suicides, and it was only with a younger demographic, while the largest group that commits suicide with firearms are elderly men. The study also said that assault weapon bans were inconclusive in effect on mass shootings.

My own opinion on it is from looking at the data I’ve seen, plus what anecdotal evidence I have from doing crime fighting stuff like a decade ago. Active shootings themselves are an incredibly small statistical occurrence, and violence involving a rifle (any rifle, hunting, assault rifle, w/e) is itself rarer than getting stabbed. The majority of gun crime is done with pistols, and good luck getting them banned in the US. Not to mention most of that is done by people who were prohibited possessors in the first place, so it was illegal for them to have them. The problem is that a lot of those times the perp doesn’t get dinged on that because a: prosecutors put their conviction rate up on a pedestal so they’ll cut whatever deal they can so they can get a W, b: the Feds don’t have the time/manpower to investigate and charge those crimes, and c: soft on crime policies in general. If we increased the size of policing agencies and directed DAs to actually go for charges on the crimes they should, you’d see a more measurable impact on gun crime.

There’s other societal things that can be done before criminality hits. The biggest one being free day care/after school programs.

I get that there’s a want to reduce gun crime, and I want it too, but the bans that are being sought aren’t going to move the needle.

30 minutes ago, Bill said:

Any change in suicide rates through gun control is wishful thinking. Suicide is more a mental health via culture problem than it is a tool used to do the job problem. For example, South Korea has some of the strictest gun control laws, yet the highest levels of suicide. Taking a tool away isn’t going to take away the mental illness behind the drive. I took a look at one of the studies from the NIH from 2024, and it showed that there was only limited to moderate evidence of restrictions that led to a decrease in suicides, and it was only with a younger demographic, while the largest group that commits suicide with firearms are elderly men. The study also said that assault weapon bans were inconclusive in effect on mass shootings.

My own opinion on it is from looking at the data I’ve seen, plus what anecdotal evidence I have from doing crime fighting stuff like a decade ago. Active shootings themselves are an incredibly small statistical occurrence, and violence involving a rifle (any rifle, hunting, assault rifle, w/e) is itself rarer than getting stabbed. The majority of gun crime is done with pistols, and good luck getting them banned in the US. Not to mention most of that is done by people who were prohibited possessors in the first place, so it was illegal for them to have them. The problem is that a lot of those times the perp doesn’t get dinged on that because a: prosecutors put their conviction rate up on a pedestal so they’ll cut whatever deal they can so they can get a W, b: the Feds don’t have the time/manpower to investigate and charge those crimes, and c: soft on crime policies in general. If we increased the size of policing agencies and directed DAs to actually go for charges on the crimes they should, you’d see a more measurable impact on gun crime.

There’s other societal things that can be done before criminality hits. The biggest one being free day care/after school programs.

I get that there’s a want to reduce gun crime, and I want it too, but the bans that are being sought aren’t going to move the needle.

Societal factor are absolutely a factor, which is why comparing suicide rates country to country is difficult. Japan and Korea are notorious for high suicide rates for many many reasons, which is why you very early on made the point on how we can't correlate changes in Australia to those in the US. So doing to the Korea now is a bit of a back peddle. So let's stick with Australia. You seem to be mischaracterizing the results of that study. The discussion of young people being more impulsive and whether guns with rapid rates of fire were necessary for suicide attempts were discussion points brought up in the end as things to contemplate, but made points to counter those arguments. It's what papers do in their discussion section. The actual data they present however...

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2704353/

"Declines in firearm‐related deaths before the law reforms accelerated after the reforms for total firearm deaths (p = 0.04), firearm suicides (p = 0.007) and firearm homicides (p = 0.15), but not for the smallest category of unintentional firearm deaths, which increased. No evidence of substitution effect for suicides or homicides was observed. The rates per 100 000 of total firearm deaths, firearm homicides and firearm suicides all at least doubled their existing rates of decline after the revised gun laws.

...

Firearm suicides represent the largest component cause of total firearm deaths in Australia (more than three in four of all firearm deaths). In the 18 years (1979–96), there were 8850 firearm suicides (annual average 491.7). In the 7 years for which reliable data are available after the announcement of the new gun laws, there were 1726 firearm suicides, an annual average of 246.6. Figure 1E and table 3 indicate that while the rate of firearm suicide was reducing by an average of 3% per year, this more than doubled to 7.4% per year after the introduction of gun laws. The ratio of trend estimates differed statistically from 1 (no effect; p = 0.007). Again, we conclude that the decline in total firearm suicides accelerated after the introduction of the gun laws.

...

Three categories dominate firearm death data in Australia: suicide, homicide and unintentional (accidental) shootings. Suicide is the leading category, with an average of 79% of all firearm deaths each year. Reliable national data on suicide attempts are not available in Australia to examine whether suicide completion rates changed after Port Arthur. However, the data show that the declining rate of suicide by firearms accelerated significantly after the 1996 gun laws, with there being no apparent substitution by other methods."

I also don't see anywhere where they mentioned assault weapon bans as having no effect on mass shootings. There were zero mass shooting in Australia since the ban at the publication of that study. Hell they didn't have one for 23 years following. What are the odds of that happening by coincidence?

https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M18-0503

"Results: Under the standard Poisson process model (Figure 1), strong evidence indicates a structural change in 1996. A (conservative, 2-sided) likelihood ratio test for a changepoint in a Poisson process model gives a P value of less than 0.001, which is strong evidence to reject the null hypothesis that the rate of mass shootings did not change after the legislation (Figure 2). Perturbing the data with an extra shooting again gives a P value of less than 0.001. A follow-up goodness-of-fit test designed to detect excessive clumping gives a P value of 0.095, which indicates that the Poisson model is a good fit in this sense; the degree of clumping in the data is not dramatic enough to reject the Poisson process model."

In layman's terms from the author: "Gun lobby-affiliated and other researchers have been saying for years that mass shootings are such rare events it could have been a matter of luck they dropped off in the wake of Australia's gun control laws. Instead, we found the odds against this hypothesis are 200,000 to one."

---

Look I have a great deal of respect for your experience here. And I also very much agree with you that other methods exist that can contribute to a similar end (fully agree on universal PreK and afterschool. But on gun control laws seems your opinions on the subject are heavily weighted by personal and anecdotal evidence whereas your data interpretation seems heavily cherry picked to reinforce those decisions. And I get where you're coming from. In the moment if you're in an active shooter situation you're damn right a gun is helpful. And that's where your expertise lays. But I really have a difficult time seeing how anyone can look objectively at the robust data we have and argue that limitations on gun access (while normalizing as best as one can for confounding factors) doesn't have any impact on gun violence/deaths/suicides/mass shootings.

10 hours ago, paco said:

Might want to stretch those scolding muscles now @DrPhilly .

As I said, you can always count on it sooner or later. It won’t always be the reason in every mass shooting (of course) but it will rear its ugly head on a fairly regular basis.