True.

Machine guns have been regulated since 1934 and outright banned in 1986

With anything before 1986 being grandfathered
But I have seen videos of automatic weapons being fired that are clearly made after 1986
So I'm not sure if a different sub section for different groups

FFLs can buy new machine guns

(I think)

yeah they get SOT samples

but short of being a SOT machine guns are prohibitively expensive

like expensive car price expensive

@SapperOne here shows the use of the *political,* not technical, term machinegun.

You're one to talk

Yes.
I am. I *litterally* am.

*ON A RELATED NOTE...* 😈😈😈😈
"One should always be wary of a scientist speaking out of his narrow field, or those invoking their name outside their fields. Scientists are human too, and are just as prone to cling to 'causes', just or frivolous, as the rest of our species."
-Dr. Peter WYKOFF WALKER, 1997 (Peter is an aerospace engineer for JPL iirc).
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
-Dr. Michael CRICHTON, MD (RIP)
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities."
-François-Marie AROUET, 1765

@Fondboy are you saying that mental wellbeing is not a component of wellbeing?

did you listen to my call in?

No, I was commuting

she told me that surveys of well being are not as accurate as suicide rates

for well being

it is a component

but a horrible predictor

I would say that if you say you're doing fine and kill yourself, you probably werent doing so fine. It depends on what the data shows

well here https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

this data shows an increase of well being

a meta analysis of 73 studies

she hand waved it

Because it's not a neutral source

uh

"The What We Know Project has recently moved to the Center for the Study of Inequality at Cornell University. We are an online research portal that marks a path-breaking convergence of scholarship, public policy and new media technology. Focusing on public policy debates around inequality"

Do you have studies made by computers?

They had their conclusion before their 'metastudy'

And since a metastudy is making a claim about what the research shows, not actual research...

yeah all of those are summaries

@JonPizza Well, the accuracy of a meta study is dependent on the accuracy of all the other studies cited. If each of the 73 studies cited are evaluated and show signs of being fundamentally flawed, then the conclusion of the meta study is completely bunk

Are you looking at these summaries? First one 'survey via the Internet and on paper", second 'non randomized sample' third '22 participants'

Based on Fondest's history of misinterpreting studies and general sleazyness, I doubt this meta study is actually accurate.

'metastudies' aren't more than whatever the person doing it wants to say, they picked what went in after all

It's as unscientific as you get because you start with the conclusion, not the question

No. Not always. Meta studies can be useful to compile the results of studies.

Nobody who understands what's going on claims that a meta study is deliberately a scientific study.

Also my study doesn't matter. Actions are morally neutral and you need to give a reason why something is bad, so she had burden of proof for suicide rates which I instantly explained was miscited

Oh please. shifting the goal posts

>actions are morally neutral