Second Parkland shooting survivor kills himself.

[JessFR]

You keep talking about evidence and such, but how much evidence do you really need to know that a machine gun is going to do more damage, or that a bump stock which again basically turns a semi automatic to a fully automatic is going to do more damage? Not exactly rocket science. I'm honestly not understanding your argument here.

Well the point isn't to prove the assumption correct. It's to find out one way or the other so we can make informed policy.

How can you be so sure that your assumption that a bump stock is likely to increase human harm in mass shootings is correct? Are you are saying you have never reached what at first seemed like an obvious conclusion that later turned out to be wrong? I have. There are mind games that you can play where most people will swear there's an obvious answer that is actually objectively wrong.

People just aren't very good at accurate assumptions, I don't trust assumptions. I don't want my safety and the safety of wider society to be based off assumptions.

It was assumed that mandatory bicycle helmets would have a net public good. But I've seen a fair bit of evidence to put that assertion in doubt. With the problem being that mandatory helmets caused fewer people to ride bikes, and number of bicyclists has been linked to increased driver awareness and safety.

What seems obvious is often more complex than it first appears.

And... We are not a poor country, it's not like we can't afford to run studies to get the answers to policy questions. We could easily run either practical simulations, or computer models, and get at least some scientific reason to believe it'll work beyond our assumptions.

And hey, often what's assumed IS correct. You might ultimately be right on this occasion. But history has many examples of public policy that seemed obvious but made things worse instead of better. And since we can do better about how we form policy. I think we should.

That's my point. I don't care about the bump stocks. Ban em, don't ban em, I really don't care about that part of it. I care that which ever course of action is taken will actually have a worthwhile outcome. And I simply don't trust peoples assumptions to achieve that reliably.

I don't know for a fact that your assumption here is wrong. It might be right. What I want is for someone to give a shit if it's right or not. To actually show some desire to find the correct policy without assumptions about what it ultimately will be. Not just about guns, about everything. But especially where human safety and freedoms are concerned.

 

[Captain.Heroin]

You keep talking about evidence and such, but how much evidence do you really need to know that a machine gun is going to do more damage, or that a bump stock which again basically turns a semi automatic to a fully automatic is going to do more damage? Not exactly rocket science. I'm honestly not understanding your argument here.

There are studies that show any bullet has the same 50/50 chance of being fatal. The fact a specific type of gun can rattle out a certain number of bullets per minute becomes exceedingly irrelevant when someone with perfect aim could do a great deal of damage with a hand gun, or two hand guns, semi-automatic or machine pistols, etc can be just as damaging as rifles.

The issue of handguns is that they are much easier to hide on your person, smuggle in somewhere, etc. Handguns are a bigger problem than assault rifles in our society and most people miss the mark on gun rights (that it is a civil right; we pay much heavier in terms of number of bodies for the right to smoke cigarettes or drink alcohol).

I think you already knew these things though; we tend to side similarly on gun rights.