|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On December 21 2012 05:49 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 02:10 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 02:04 Focuspants wrote:On December 21 2012 02:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:45 silynxer wrote:On December 21 2012 01:38 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:35 silynxer wrote:On December 21 2012 01:28 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:14 mcc wrote:On December 21 2012 01:02 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
It's clear proof. Sorry that you're disappointed it's not the guns. Some people have the "I have to be right" issue I see. Are you dense ? In the post you respond to I am saying it is also not guns alone. You seem to be the one with kneejerk reactions and ideological attitude. "It is the guns" is as simplistic and stupid explanation as "It is the drugs". God forbid social phenomena are actually complex. So let's see. People who use guns to murder (or any other method) others are crazy yes? %99.99 of gun owners and an even higher pecentage of people in the US DO NOT murder. What do people who do mass shootings or even multiple murders have in common? Drugs. What's the difference between law-abiding citizens who own guns who DON'T use their guns to murder have with criminals who do use them for murder? The difference is the latter is either 1) mentally insane or 2) is on some type of drug, specifically psychiatric drug or 3) both of 1 and 2. What are you even arguing? That taking every single gun out of the US will reduce gun related violence? Probably. Will it stop the crazy people on drugs from continuing to find ways to murder people? No. Will it stop criminals from committing crime? No. Will it make law abiding citizens safer? No. Will it make criminals safer? Yes. Will it be easier for criminals to commit crimes knowing their victims don't have guns? Yes. Again, Switzerland has a gun in almost every single household yet they have a very low crime rate and gun related violence or homicide rate. A clear big difference between the US and Switzerland is that one of them has 1 out of 5 of their citizens on psychiatric drugs and uses %80 of the world's pain killers while being %4 of the world's population. US has a MAJOR drug abuse problem while Switzerland does not. You could go back one page and read what a guy from Switzerland wrote about the gun situation in his country and how it is a bit different from the US. Btw you can use the same argument like above about people who use drugs or are mentally ill, a really high percentage of them does not kill anyone, but those who manage to do so are likely to own guns (I will not make that argument because it's simplistic and stupid and perhaps not even true, I just try to show you that the situation might be somewhat more complex than you are painting here). Or maybe because most of the people on those drugs commit suicide rather than go on shooting sprees. I agree that we need to make sure we have ways to keep guns out of mentally insane or psychiatrically drugged people, BUT this has to be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens rights to own guns who have done nothing wrong. http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=suicides Suicide is another interesting topic. People who own guns are more likely to die in a suicide (because they are more likely successful), there was a study linked in this thread I think. Whether that's good or bad or not that bad is again a bit difficult to decide. Your links to ssristories do not show anything if you do not have a complete list of all incidents (with and without drug or suicide). People die from suicide 3-4 times more than they do from firearms. If I find a statistic that shows how many people who commit suicide are on drugs or psychiatric drugs I will post it. If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do so with or without a gun. "The Harvard School of Mental Health just published the results of a study that examined the relationship between household firearms ownership and the rate of suicide. According to the study suicide among people 45 years of age and younger suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States. Among the 50 states in the United States, those with higher rates of household gun ownership had higher rates of suicide among children, women and men. It is important to understand, according to the study, that the higher rates of suicide among those who own guns has to do with the fact that guns are much more lethal than other methods of attempting suicide. What is troubling about this is that suicide attempts are viewed as a desperate call for help among those who are depressed or mentally ill with a psychotic illness. The rate of successful suicide completions is far less for people who use other methods than using a gun. For example, 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late." That is all you need to know. There is a chance to receive help if you survive. You don't survive if you use a gun. It is a waste of a potentially salvageable life. Again, you are wanting to deal with the symptom, not the cause. Taking away guns would decrease the amount of total successful suicides? But what about dealing with why people want to commit suicides? Unless you think there is no issue there -- suicide attempts will happen no matter what you do and there is no value in trying to deal with this issue? So basically we end up with a lot more of people, who probably happen to have mental issues, but of no way with trying to cope with this? So we just assign someone to watch them 24/7? Or hope that the 3% chance of success decreases or holds up over infinity time? In a lot of cases there is no way to help the person before he attempts a suicide, because he hides that anything is wrong. So by eliminating guns from the equation you allow that cause to be discovered and treated. You are assuming there is a way to treat the cause beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. In the latter case lack of guns allows possibly saving that person.
You are saying there is no way to discover/treat this issue before hand? So then why is it that some countries have prevailing instances of suicide than others? Certain societal/cultural norms yield higher risks of suicide -- this is a common understanding in psychology and other professions.
If you don't believe there is a cure/preventive way of treating potential suicides, what the hell is the point of "discovering" people who failed to commit suicide via drugs? Are we going to assign people to watch them 24/7 for the rest of their life? Even your logic implies there is some way to treat this, so why not start with that?
And your solution DOES NOT address the issue I brought up in another post. Not every one in suicide is looking for a quick out.
|
On December 21 2012 08:56 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 08:24 JingleHell wrote:
No, I'm saying that if you're going to use incomparable data, you better document how you made the data work together. Transparency.
The author identified and controlled for these differences. You have siezed on the portion of the paper mentioning such differences, which they controlled for, and are using it to claim the paper is invalid. On the contrary, the fact they clearly identified such issues themselves, and properly controlled for them, shows the impeccable nature of their research. The mental gymnastics you are going through to justify ignoring this paper are painful to see.
If I'm doing mental gymnastics, why have you not yet managed to quote me the specific portion that proves me wrong? Show me specifically where and what they said they did in the process of "accounting" for the completely different statistics being used.
Answer the simple question I've been putting to you. How did they account for the difference?
|
On December 21 2012 09:56 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 05:49 mcc wrote:On December 21 2012 02:10 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 02:04 Focuspants wrote:On December 21 2012 02:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:45 silynxer wrote:On December 21 2012 01:38 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:35 silynxer wrote:On December 21 2012 01:28 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:14 mcc wrote:
[quote]
Are you dense ? In the post you respond to I am saying it is also not guns alone. You seem to be the one with kneejerk reactions and ideological attitude. "It is the guns" is as simplistic and stupid explanation as "It is the drugs". God forbid social phenomena are actually complex. So let's see. People who use guns to murder (or any other method) others are crazy yes? %99.99 of gun owners and an even higher pecentage of people in the US DO NOT murder. What do people who do mass shootings or even multiple murders have in common? Drugs. What's the difference between law-abiding citizens who own guns who DON'T use their guns to murder have with criminals who do use them for murder? The difference is the latter is either 1) mentally insane or 2) is on some type of drug, specifically psychiatric drug or 3) both of 1 and 2. What are you even arguing? That taking every single gun out of the US will reduce gun related violence? Probably. Will it stop the crazy people on drugs from continuing to find ways to murder people? No. Will it stop criminals from committing crime? No. Will it make law abiding citizens safer? No. Will it make criminals safer? Yes. Will it be easier for criminals to commit crimes knowing their victims don't have guns? Yes. Again, Switzerland has a gun in almost every single household yet they have a very low crime rate and gun related violence or homicide rate. A clear big difference between the US and Switzerland is that one of them has 1 out of 5 of their citizens on psychiatric drugs and uses %80 of the world's pain killers while being %4 of the world's population. US has a MAJOR drug abuse problem while Switzerland does not. You could go back one page and read what a guy from Switzerland wrote about the gun situation in his country and how it is a bit different from the US. Btw you can use the same argument like above about people who use drugs or are mentally ill, a really high percentage of them does not kill anyone, but those who manage to do so are likely to own guns (I will not make that argument because it's simplistic and stupid and perhaps not even true, I just try to show you that the situation might be somewhat more complex than you are painting here). Or maybe because most of the people on those drugs commit suicide rather than go on shooting sprees. I agree that we need to make sure we have ways to keep guns out of mentally insane or psychiatrically drugged people, BUT this has to be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens rights to own guns who have done nothing wrong. http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=suicides Suicide is another interesting topic. People who own guns are more likely to die in a suicide (because they are more likely successful), there was a study linked in this thread I think. Whether that's good or bad or not that bad is again a bit difficult to decide. Your links to ssristories do not show anything if you do not have a complete list of all incidents (with and without drug or suicide). People die from suicide 3-4 times more than they do from firearms. If I find a statistic that shows how many people who commit suicide are on drugs or psychiatric drugs I will post it. If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do so with or without a gun. "The Harvard School of Mental Health just published the results of a study that examined the relationship between household firearms ownership and the rate of suicide. According to the study suicide among people 45 years of age and younger suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States. Among the 50 states in the United States, those with higher rates of household gun ownership had higher rates of suicide among children, women and men. It is important to understand, according to the study, that the higher rates of suicide among those who own guns has to do with the fact that guns are much more lethal than other methods of attempting suicide. What is troubling about this is that suicide attempts are viewed as a desperate call for help among those who are depressed or mentally ill with a psychotic illness. The rate of successful suicide completions is far less for people who use other methods than using a gun. For example, 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late." That is all you need to know. There is a chance to receive help if you survive. You don't survive if you use a gun. It is a waste of a potentially salvageable life. Again, you are wanting to deal with the symptom, not the cause. Taking away guns would decrease the amount of total successful suicides? But what about dealing with why people want to commit suicides? Unless you think there is no issue there -- suicide attempts will happen no matter what you do and there is no value in trying to deal with this issue? So basically we end up with a lot more of people, who probably happen to have mental issues, but of no way with trying to cope with this? So we just assign someone to watch them 24/7? Or hope that the 3% chance of success decreases or holds up over infinity time? In a lot of cases there is no way to help the person before he attempts a suicide, because he hides that anything is wrong. So by eliminating guns from the equation you allow that cause to be discovered and treated. You are assuming there is a way to treat the cause beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. In the latter case lack of guns allows possibly saving that person. You are saying there is no way to discover/treat this issue before hand? So then why is it that some countries have prevailing instances of suicide than others? Certain societal/cultural norms yield higher risks of suicide -- this is a common understanding in psychology and other professions. If you don't believe there is a cure/preventive way of treating potential suicides, what the hell is the point of "discovering" people who failed to commit suicide via drugs? Are we going to assign people to watch them 24/7 for the rest of their life? Even your logic implies there is some way to treat this, so why not start with that? And your solution DOES NOT address the issue I brought up in another post. Not every one in suicide is looking for a quick out.
Read my post and then tell me where did I say or imply things you are accusing me of saying. I never said it is never possible to discover the issue beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Cure does not equal preventative treatment. Preventative treatment means beforehand, cure means whenever. So again you are lying about what I said as I never said anything about not believing in cure. If the person fails the attempt we can cure him since we know now that he has a problem. This is impossible in many cases to know beforehand even using all epidemiological data about risk factors, because those are statistical and thus cannot tell you exactly who actually suffers from what. It only allows you some measure of targeted preventative actions, but it will never allow you to accurately pinpoint all of those people (I am talking never as in in a near to medium future). Also I never presented it as a solution to anything I just pointed out that if guns are not present, many people attempting suicide can be saved and no preventative action will have similar effect. Is it a good policy in general ? That is another question as then we need to consider issue other than only mental health. But purely from the standpoint of suicides, getting rid of the guns from society would save a lot of people.
|
On December 21 2012 11:04 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 08:56 Zaqwe wrote:On December 21 2012 08:24 JingleHell wrote:
No, I'm saying that if you're going to use incomparable data, you better document how you made the data work together. Transparency.
The author identified and controlled for these differences. You have siezed on the portion of the paper mentioning such differences, which they controlled for, and are using it to claim the paper is invalid. On the contrary, the fact they clearly identified such issues themselves, and properly controlled for them, shows the impeccable nature of their research. The mental gymnastics you are going through to justify ignoring this paper are painful to see. If I'm doing mental gymnastics, why have you not yet managed to quote me the specific portion that proves me wrong? Show me specifically where and what they said they did in the process of "accounting" for the completely different statistics being used. Answer the simple question I've been putting to you. How did they account for the difference?
You already saw it and deliberately edited it out when you quoted the paper because it preemptively contradicted your complaints:
Note to Figure 3. The jump in the UK violent crime rate after 1997 reflects a discontinuity in definitions and
recording practices. The Home Office (2008) notices that “the number of violence against the person offences
recorded by the police increased by 118 per cent as a result of the 1998 changes [...]. Much of this increase resulted
from a widening of the offence coverage to include assaults with little or no physical injury, and offences of
harassment (again with no injury)” (p. 60). In the inferential part of the paper this will be controlled for by year
fixed effects. The dynamics after the discontinuity, though is genuine.
Do you have no shame?
|
On December 21 2012 12:31 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 11:04 JingleHell wrote:On December 21 2012 08:56 Zaqwe wrote:On December 21 2012 08:24 JingleHell wrote:
No, I'm saying that if you're going to use incomparable data, you better document how you made the data work together. Transparency.
The author identified and controlled for these differences. You have siezed on the portion of the paper mentioning such differences, which they controlled for, and are using it to claim the paper is invalid. On the contrary, the fact they clearly identified such issues themselves, and properly controlled for them, shows the impeccable nature of their research. The mental gymnastics you are going through to justify ignoring this paper are painful to see. If I'm doing mental gymnastics, why have you not yet managed to quote me the specific portion that proves me wrong? Show me specifically where and what they said they did in the process of "accounting" for the completely different statistics being used. Answer the simple question I've been putting to you. How did they account for the difference? You already saw it and deliberately edited it out when you quoted the paper because it preemptively contradicted your complaints: Note to Figure 3. The jump in the UK violent crime rate after 1997 reflects a discontinuity in definitions and
recording practices. The Home Office (2008) notices that “the number of violence against the person offences
recorded by the police increased by 118 per cent as a result of the 1998 changes [...]. Much of this increase resulted
from a widening of the offence coverage to include assaults with little or no physical injury, and offences of
harassment (again with no injury)” (p. 60). In the inferential part of the paper this will be controlled for by year
fixed effects. The dynamics after the discontinuity, though is genuine.Do you have no shame?
That's not them saying what they're doing, unless I'm not understanding. Maybe, instead of seeking to make personal attacks, you should seek to educate, because if that actually explains exactly what was being done, I don't understand it.
|
On December 21 2012 11:38 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 09:56 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 05:49 mcc wrote:On December 21 2012 02:10 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 02:04 Focuspants wrote:On December 21 2012 02:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:45 silynxer wrote:On December 21 2012 01:38 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:35 silynxer wrote:On December 21 2012 01:28 Esk23 wrote:
[quote]
So let's see. People who use guns to murder (or any other method) others are crazy yes? %99.99 of gun owners and an even higher pecentage of people in the US DO NOT murder. What do people who do mass shootings or even multiple murders have in common? Drugs. What's the difference between law-abiding citizens who own guns who DON'T use their guns to murder have with criminals who do use them for murder? The difference is the latter is either 1) mentally insane or 2) is on some type of drug, specifically psychiatric drug or 3) both of 1 and 2.
What are you even arguing? That taking every single gun out of the US will reduce gun related violence? Probably. Will it stop the crazy people on drugs from continuing to find ways to murder people? No. Will it stop criminals from committing crime? No. Will it make law abiding citizens safer? No. Will it make criminals safer? Yes. Will it be easier for criminals to commit crimes knowing their victims don't have guns? Yes.
Again, Switzerland has a gun in almost every single household yet they have a very low crime rate and gun related violence or homicide rate. A clear big difference between the US and Switzerland is that one of them has 1 out of 5 of their citizens on psychiatric drugs and uses %80 of the world's pain killers while being %4 of the world's population. US has a MAJOR drug abuse problem while Switzerland does not. You could go back one page and read what a guy from Switzerland wrote about the gun situation in his country and how it is a bit different from the US. Btw you can use the same argument like above about people who use drugs or are mentally ill, a really high percentage of them does not kill anyone, but those who manage to do so are likely to own guns (I will not make that argument because it's simplistic and stupid and perhaps not even true, I just try to show you that the situation might be somewhat more complex than you are painting here). Or maybe because most of the people on those drugs commit suicide rather than go on shooting sprees. I agree that we need to make sure we have ways to keep guns out of mentally insane or psychiatrically drugged people, BUT this has to be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens rights to own guns who have done nothing wrong. http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=suicides Suicide is another interesting topic. People who own guns are more likely to die in a suicide (because they are more likely successful), there was a study linked in this thread I think. Whether that's good or bad or not that bad is again a bit difficult to decide. Your links to ssristories do not show anything if you do not have a complete list of all incidents (with and without drug or suicide). People die from suicide 3-4 times more than they do from firearms. If I find a statistic that shows how many people who commit suicide are on drugs or psychiatric drugs I will post it. If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do so with or without a gun. "The Harvard School of Mental Health just published the results of a study that examined the relationship between household firearms ownership and the rate of suicide. According to the study suicide among people 45 years of age and younger suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States. Among the 50 states in the United States, those with higher rates of household gun ownership had higher rates of suicide among children, women and men. It is important to understand, according to the study, that the higher rates of suicide among those who own guns has to do with the fact that guns are much more lethal than other methods of attempting suicide. What is troubling about this is that suicide attempts are viewed as a desperate call for help among those who are depressed or mentally ill with a psychotic illness. The rate of successful suicide completions is far less for people who use other methods than using a gun. For example, 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late." That is all you need to know. There is a chance to receive help if you survive. You don't survive if you use a gun. It is a waste of a potentially salvageable life. Again, you are wanting to deal with the symptom, not the cause. Taking away guns would decrease the amount of total successful suicides? But what about dealing with why people want to commit suicides? Unless you think there is no issue there -- suicide attempts will happen no matter what you do and there is no value in trying to deal with this issue? So basically we end up with a lot more of people, who probably happen to have mental issues, but of no way with trying to cope with this? So we just assign someone to watch them 24/7? Or hope that the 3% chance of success decreases or holds up over infinity time? In a lot of cases there is no way to help the person before he attempts a suicide, because he hides that anything is wrong. So by eliminating guns from the equation you allow that cause to be discovered and treated. You are assuming there is a way to treat the cause beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. In the latter case lack of guns allows possibly saving that person. You are saying there is no way to discover/treat this issue before hand? So then why is it that some countries have prevailing instances of suicide than others? Certain societal/cultural norms yield higher risks of suicide -- this is a common understanding in psychology and other professions. If you don't believe there is a cure/preventive way of treating potential suicides, what the hell is the point of "discovering" people who failed to commit suicide via drugs? Are we going to assign people to watch them 24/7 for the rest of their life? Even your logic implies there is some way to treat this, so why not start with that? And your solution DOES NOT address the issue I brought up in another post. Not every one in suicide is looking for a quick out. Read my post and then tell me where did I say or imply things you are accusing me of saying. I never said it is never possible to discover the issue beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Cure does not equal preventative treatment. Preventative treatment means beforehand, cure means whenever. So again you are lying about what I said as I never said anything about not believing in cure. If the person fails the attempt we can cure him since we know now that he has a problem. This is impossible in many cases to know beforehand even using all epidemiological data about risk factors, because those are statistical and thus cannot tell you exactly who actually suffers from what. It only allows you some measure of targeted preventative actions, but it will never allow you to accurately pinpoint all of those people (I am talking never as in in a near to medium future). Also I never presented it as a solution to anything I just pointed out that if guns are not present, many people attempting suicide can be saved and no preventative action will have similar effect. Is it a good policy in general ? That is another question as then we need to consider issue other than only mental health. But purely from the standpoint of suicides, getting rid of the guns from society would save a lot of people.
You are not understanding what I'm saying. So to make it simple for you:
Even if a policy with no guns saves people with a deeper issue, what's the point?
If there is a way to prevent these things besides taking away guns, why not try it?
|
On December 21 2012 12:34 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 12:31 Zaqwe wrote:On December 21 2012 11:04 JingleHell wrote:On December 21 2012 08:56 Zaqwe wrote:On December 21 2012 08:24 JingleHell wrote:
No, I'm saying that if you're going to use incomparable data, you better document how you made the data work together. Transparency.
The author identified and controlled for these differences. You have siezed on the portion of the paper mentioning such differences, which they controlled for, and are using it to claim the paper is invalid. On the contrary, the fact they clearly identified such issues themselves, and properly controlled for them, shows the impeccable nature of their research. The mental gymnastics you are going through to justify ignoring this paper are painful to see. If I'm doing mental gymnastics, why have you not yet managed to quote me the specific portion that proves me wrong? Show me specifically where and what they said they did in the process of "accounting" for the completely different statistics being used. Answer the simple question I've been putting to you. How did they account for the difference? You already saw it and deliberately edited it out when you quoted the paper because it preemptively contradicted your complaints: Note to Figure 3. The jump in the UK violent crime rate after 1997 reflects a discontinuity in definitions and
recording practices. The Home Office (2008) notices that “the number of violence against the person offences
recorded by the police increased by 118 per cent as a result of the 1998 changes [...]. Much of this increase resulted
from a widening of the offence coverage to include assaults with little or no physical injury, and offences of
harassment (again with no injury)” (p. 60). In the inferential part of the paper this will be controlled for by year
fixed effects. The dynamics after the discontinuity, though is genuine.Do you have no shame? That's not them saying what they're doing, unless I'm not understanding. Maybe, instead of seeking to make personal attacks, you should seek to educate, because if that actually explains exactly what was being done, I don't understand it.
You are arguing against a paper you have not read and are refusing to read. Your objections are nonsensical. It boggles the mind that someone could be so dense as to claim that the author identifying and controlling for confounding variables is somehow a black mark against the paper. It is hard for me to even fathom what could be going through your head. It's not like you spotted the statistical disparities yourself, you read them directly from the author who discusses and accounts for them in the article itself!
Here is the paper:
http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdf
Read it and become educated. Feel free to try and refute it after you have read it.
|
On December 21 2012 12:45 jacosajh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 11:38 mcc wrote:On December 21 2012 09:56 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 05:49 mcc wrote:On December 21 2012 02:10 jacosajh wrote:On December 21 2012 02:04 Focuspants wrote:On December 21 2012 02:01 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:45 silynxer wrote:On December 21 2012 01:38 Esk23 wrote:On December 21 2012 01:35 silynxer wrote:
[quote]
You could go back one page and read what a guy from Switzerland wrote about the gun situation in his country and how it is a bit different from the US.
Btw you can use the same argument like above about people who use drugs or are mentally ill, a really high percentage of them does not kill anyone, but those who manage to do so are likely to own guns (I will not make that argument because it's simplistic and stupid and perhaps not even true, I just try to show you that the situation might be somewhat more complex than you are painting here). Or maybe because most of the people on those drugs commit suicide rather than go on shooting sprees. I agree that we need to make sure we have ways to keep guns out of mentally insane or psychiatrically drugged people, BUT this has to be done without infringing upon law-abiding citizens rights to own guns who have done nothing wrong. http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=suicides Suicide is another interesting topic. People who own guns are more likely to die in a suicide (because they are more likely successful), there was a study linked in this thread I think. Whether that's good or bad or not that bad is again a bit difficult to decide. Your links to ssristories do not show anything if you do not have a complete list of all incidents (with and without drug or suicide). People die from suicide 3-4 times more than they do from firearms. If I find a statistic that shows how many people who commit suicide are on drugs or psychiatric drugs I will post it. If someone wants to commit suicide, they will do so with or without a gun. "The Harvard School of Mental Health just published the results of a study that examined the relationship between household firearms ownership and the rate of suicide. According to the study suicide among people 45 years of age and younger suicide is the 3rd leading cause of death in the United States. Among the 50 states in the United States, those with higher rates of household gun ownership had higher rates of suicide among children, women and men. It is important to understand, according to the study, that the higher rates of suicide among those who own guns has to do with the fact that guns are much more lethal than other methods of attempting suicide. What is troubling about this is that suicide attempts are viewed as a desperate call for help among those who are depressed or mentally ill with a psychotic illness. The rate of successful suicide completions is far less for people who use other methods than using a gun. For example, 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs. These people are found alive 97% of the time. Those who succeed in using drugs to attempt suicide are successful only 3% of the time. By contrast, more than 90% of all suicide attempts by use of firearms are successful. The bottom line is that anyone using a gun to commit suicide is not likely to have their call for help heard and responded to before its too late." That is all you need to know. There is a chance to receive help if you survive. You don't survive if you use a gun. It is a waste of a potentially salvageable life. Again, you are wanting to deal with the symptom, not the cause. Taking away guns would decrease the amount of total successful suicides? But what about dealing with why people want to commit suicides? Unless you think there is no issue there -- suicide attempts will happen no matter what you do and there is no value in trying to deal with this issue? So basically we end up with a lot more of people, who probably happen to have mental issues, but of no way with trying to cope with this? So we just assign someone to watch them 24/7? Or hope that the 3% chance of success decreases or holds up over infinity time? In a lot of cases there is no way to help the person before he attempts a suicide, because he hides that anything is wrong. So by eliminating guns from the equation you allow that cause to be discovered and treated. You are assuming there is a way to treat the cause beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. In the latter case lack of guns allows possibly saving that person. You are saying there is no way to discover/treat this issue before hand? So then why is it that some countries have prevailing instances of suicide than others? Certain societal/cultural norms yield higher risks of suicide -- this is a common understanding in psychology and other professions. If you don't believe there is a cure/preventive way of treating potential suicides, what the hell is the point of "discovering" people who failed to commit suicide via drugs? Are we going to assign people to watch them 24/7 for the rest of their life? Even your logic implies there is some way to treat this, so why not start with that? And your solution DOES NOT address the issue I brought up in another post. Not every one in suicide is looking for a quick out. Read my post and then tell me where did I say or imply things you are accusing me of saying. I never said it is never possible to discover the issue beforehand. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Cure does not equal preventative treatment. Preventative treatment means beforehand, cure means whenever. So again you are lying about what I said as I never said anything about not believing in cure. If the person fails the attempt we can cure him since we know now that he has a problem. This is impossible in many cases to know beforehand even using all epidemiological data about risk factors, because those are statistical and thus cannot tell you exactly who actually suffers from what. It only allows you some measure of targeted preventative actions, but it will never allow you to accurately pinpoint all of those people (I am talking never as in in a near to medium future). Also I never presented it as a solution to anything I just pointed out that if guns are not present, many people attempting suicide can be saved and no preventative action will have similar effect. Is it a good policy in general ? That is another question as then we need to consider issue other than only mental health. But purely from the standpoint of suicides, getting rid of the guns from society would save a lot of people. You are not understanding what I'm saying. So to make it simple for you: Even if a policy with no guns saves people with a deeper issue, what's the point? If there is a way to prevent these things besides taking away guns, why not try it?
It seems it is you who does not understand as that objection makes absolutely no sense considering what I wrote. To reiterate : No such way exists for many of those cases as there is no possible action before the suicide attempt and after it they are dead due to presence of guns. There is nothing that you can do as those cases are inevitable without some technology that we can only dream about for a long time. And in presence of guns those inevitable cases will have high mortality.
|
On December 21 2012 12:56 Zaqwe wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 12:34 JingleHell wrote:On December 21 2012 12:31 Zaqwe wrote:On December 21 2012 11:04 JingleHell wrote:On December 21 2012 08:56 Zaqwe wrote:On December 21 2012 08:24 JingleHell wrote:
No, I'm saying that if you're going to use incomparable data, you better document how you made the data work together. Transparency.
The author identified and controlled for these differences. You have siezed on the portion of the paper mentioning such differences, which they controlled for, and are using it to claim the paper is invalid. On the contrary, the fact they clearly identified such issues themselves, and properly controlled for them, shows the impeccable nature of their research. The mental gymnastics you are going through to justify ignoring this paper are painful to see. If I'm doing mental gymnastics, why have you not yet managed to quote me the specific portion that proves me wrong? Show me specifically where and what they said they did in the process of "accounting" for the completely different statistics being used. Answer the simple question I've been putting to you. How did they account for the difference? You already saw it and deliberately edited it out when you quoted the paper because it preemptively contradicted your complaints: Note to Figure 3. The jump in the UK violent crime rate after 1997 reflects a discontinuity in definitions and
recording practices. The Home Office (2008) notices that “the number of violence against the person offences
recorded by the police increased by 118 per cent as a result of the 1998 changes [...]. Much of this increase resulted
from a widening of the offence coverage to include assaults with little or no physical injury, and offences of
harassment (again with no injury)” (p. 60). In the inferential part of the paper this will be controlled for by year
fixed effects. The dynamics after the discontinuity, though is genuine.Do you have no shame? That's not them saying what they're doing, unless I'm not understanding. Maybe, instead of seeking to make personal attacks, you should seek to educate, because if that actually explains exactly what was being done, I don't understand it. You are arguing against a paper you have not read and are refusing to read. Your objections are nonsensical. It boggles the mind that someone could be so dense as to claim that the author identifying and controlling for confounding variables is somehow a black mark against the paper. It is hard for me to even fathom what could be going through your head. It's not like you spotted the statistical disparities yourself, you read them directly from the author who discusses and accounts for them in the article itself! Here is the paper: http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdfRead it and become educated. Feel free to try and refute it after you have read it.
If you've read it and understand it, and I've read it and don't, YOU need to fucking educate me, or stop talking shit. Not rocket science. I raised what seems to be a legitimate question about the data, and you can't explain it to me, so you shouldn't be talking.
|
On December 21 2012 13:14 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 12:56 Zaqwe wrote:On December 21 2012 12:34 JingleHell wrote:On December 21 2012 12:31 Zaqwe wrote:On December 21 2012 11:04 JingleHell wrote:On December 21 2012 08:56 Zaqwe wrote:On December 21 2012 08:24 JingleHell wrote:
No, I'm saying that if you're going to use incomparable data, you better document how you made the data work together. Transparency.
The author identified and controlled for these differences. You have siezed on the portion of the paper mentioning such differences, which they controlled for, and are using it to claim the paper is invalid. On the contrary, the fact they clearly identified such issues themselves, and properly controlled for them, shows the impeccable nature of their research. The mental gymnastics you are going through to justify ignoring this paper are painful to see. If I'm doing mental gymnastics, why have you not yet managed to quote me the specific portion that proves me wrong? Show me specifically where and what they said they did in the process of "accounting" for the completely different statistics being used. Answer the simple question I've been putting to you. How did they account for the difference? You already saw it and deliberately edited it out when you quoted the paper because it preemptively contradicted your complaints: Note to Figure 3. The jump in the UK violent crime rate after 1997 reflects a discontinuity in definitions and
recording practices. The Home Office (2008) notices that “the number of violence against the person offences
recorded by the police increased by 118 per cent as a result of the 1998 changes [...]. Much of this increase resulted
from a widening of the offence coverage to include assaults with little or no physical injury, and offences of
harassment (again with no injury)” (p. 60). In the inferential part of the paper this will be controlled for by year
fixed effects. The dynamics after the discontinuity, though is genuine.Do you have no shame? That's not them saying what they're doing, unless I'm not understanding. Maybe, instead of seeking to make personal attacks, you should seek to educate, because if that actually explains exactly what was being done, I don't understand it. You are arguing against a paper you have not read and are refusing to read. Your objections are nonsensical. It boggles the mind that someone could be so dense as to claim that the author identifying and controlling for confounding variables is somehow a black mark against the paper. It is hard for me to even fathom what could be going through your head. It's not like you spotted the statistical disparities yourself, you read them directly from the author who discusses and accounts for them in the article itself! Here is the paper: http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdfRead it and become educated. Feel free to try and refute it after you have read it. If you've read it and understand it, and I've read it and don't, YOU need to fucking educate me, or stop talking shit. Not rocket science. I raised what seems to be a legitimate question about the data, and you can't explain it to me, so you shouldn't be talking.
You didn't raise any legitimate question. How preposterous! You just took a quote where the author raised the issues himself, edited out the part where he mentions controlling for them, and are desperately clinging onto that as an excuse to ignore the evidence which you wish didn't exist. Condemning a paper for recognizing factors it needs to control for, which it does, is the most bizarre display of willful ignorance I have ever seen.
This is immensely pathetic, and a complete waste of time.
What am I supposed to do, copy and paste the paper in its entirety? I can lead a horse to water, but I can't force it to drink.
2.1 Measuring crime[...] Our main measure of criminal activity is the total number of offenses reported to the police per 1,000 inhabitants. All explanatory variables are also normalized by the size of the population. In addition to focusing on total crime, we distinguish between property and violent crime when possible, and also look (in the Appendix) at homicides separately. [...] One may wonder whether different and varying reporting rates bias the picture we want to render. This is not a concern when doing inference (employing country fixed effects, year fixed effects, and country-specific trends absorbs the resulting variation), but a bias could be present when looking at plain sample statistics.
The Web Appendix expands on these measurement issues. First, we take a separate look at voluntary homicides, which have the same definition everywhere and whose reporting rate is virtually 100% (very few voluntary homicides are not known to the police or misclassified as, for instance, suicides). Second, we correct crime rates using reporting rates from victimization surveys when possible. In both cases we produce evidence consistent with the reversal of misfortunes: this does not seem an artefact of measurement errors.Crime in Europe and the US: Dissecting the “Reversal of Misfortunes”Web Appendix
I don't understand why you are so frantically arguing about why you won't read the paper. In all the time you have spent making inane posts you could have read it by now.
At least have the courtesy to not post about a topic you don't understand and refuse to learn anything about.
|
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go!
|
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
|
On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go!
This thread has 291 pages as of this post. Do you really think your coming to the table with something new? Multiple posters have carried out fairly involved discussions using pretty much the exact same language you are.
|
On December 21 2012 15:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go! This thread has 291 pages as of this post. Do you really think your coming to the table with something new? Multiple posters have carried out fairly involved discussions using pretty much the exact same language you are.
Hey colaboy, you made the same exact post to me in the 2012 election thread. I am so glad that TL has thread constables!
Someone who is not colaboy, please address my question. Reminder to colaboy that these threads tend to discuss various angles of the subject from "page" to "page," and that "it has been discussed" is generally not an acceptable retort. Judging from colaboy's "lol noob" response and his professed intimate knowledge of each of the 291 pages of this thread, my question has in fact not been resolved.
Edit: @colaboy, lol nice sig!
|
On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
It's one thing for criminals to break the law, it's another for laws to be so wholly ineffective that it essentially enables anyone to have access to dangerous weapons, regardless of background, education or training.
Car thieves, with or without a drivers license, will find a way to steal cars. But licensing insures a mininum standard for people that own and drive cars, legally. It is a process that automatically deters and weeds out those that are mentally or physically incapable from driving cars. And the punishment for people that are caught driving a car illegally is clear -- even before they do anything that may lead to a fatality or tragedy.
As it stands, legal gun owners have absolutely no credibility. As long as the standard to own and operate is so low (it's easier for a civilian to purchase and operate a gun than a police officer in-training), their claims that most gun owners are responsible are laughable and unprovable. James Holmes, Adam Lanz and Seung-Hui Cho all acquired their arsenals legally, and met the same non-existent standards of average, law-abiding civilians.
So what would stronger Gun Control legislation achieve? It would make it much harder for the mentally ill to acquire or access dangerous firearms, without assuming the risk of breaking the law outright. It would also IMPROVE and PROTECT the rights of responsible, experienced Gun Owners, by raising the standards of gun ownership overall.
|
On December 21 2012 15:35 Defacer wrote:
It's sad that all gun-nuts can do is bury their heads in statistics and try to convince themselves things aren't so bad by comparing themselves to other countries, instead of being proactive and looking at how they can improve public safety at home.
Who cares if the UK techincally has more violent crime per capita? Violent crime in the UK can be anything from straight up murder to a bar fight after a football game.
I thought Americans that actually cared about the welfare of their country would be more interested in debating how to keep guns away from crazy people. Seriously, is their some kind of disagreement there? Are there people willing to argue that a nut like Lanz should have had access to a gun?
Dang.
I don't think any one is arguing that every one should have a gun and mental wards should have a basket of hand guns at the exit... Most people in the thread who are "gun nuts" are in favour of stricter restrictions in the US. People are just arguing about the belief that more guns=more violence.
However, it is rather annoying being called a gun nut once or twice a page for being against a gun ban >.>... I think non gun owners have this view of gun owners as some racist hicks with cowboy boots living in the country who just can't wait to shoot some one at the first chance they get...
|
On December 21 2012 15:53 Defacer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
It's one thing for criminals to break the law, it's another for laws to be so wholly ineffective that it essentially enables anyone to have access to dangerous weapons, regardless of background, education or training. Car thieves, with or without a drivers license, will find a way to steal cars. But licensing insures a mininum standard for people that own and drive cars, legally. It is a process that automatically deters and weeds out those that are mentally or physically incapable from driving cars. And the punishment for people that are caught driving a car illegally is clear -- even before they do anything that may lead to a fatality or tragedy. As it stands, legal gun owners have absolutely no credibility. As long as the standard to own and operate is so low (it's easier for a civilian to purchase and operate a gun than a police officer in-training), there claims that most gun owners are responsible are laughable. James Holmes, Adam Lanz and Seung-Hui Cho all acquired their arsenals legally. So what would stronger Gun Control legislation achieve? It would make it much harder for the mentally ill to acquire or access dangerous firearms, without assuming the risk of breaking the law outright. It would also IMPROVE and PROTECT the rights of responsible, experienced Gun Owners, by raising the standards of gun ownership overall.
The analogy with licensing for vehicles is a poor one. The presumption you make is that firearm fatalities are largely accidents. If the average vehicular fatality was chronicled by an individual willfully using a car as a deadly weapon, then perhaps it could hold water...
I disagree that GUN CONTROL will make it more difficult for people who are mentally unqualified to possess firearms to do so. How do you propose to test mental qualification? If a wacko is determined to legally obtain a firearm, they will simply lie. If for some reason they are not able to legally obtain the firearm, they will simply go outside of the law. Problem not solved!
If anyone wants to hear my solution to the public / school shooting epidemic, I will gladly share it, although I doubt that you left-wing types will like it much... ;-)
|
On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
New to this thread, but have been asking the same question for a while in similar topics across the multiverse; still no solid logical reply.
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
In the event that you are unable to answer the question above, what do you believe goes through the minds of politicians who push GUN CONTROL?
Bear in mind that the case study for this question assumes a society that already has nearly as many legally registered or available-for-sale weapons as there are people, so arguments like "GUN CONTROL will help because most murder weapons are stolen" are not going to hold any water - you can presume that, if someone who is outside of the law wants a gun, they will be able to get a gun no matter what government is able to do to prevent it.
Ready, steady, go!
Just read the thread... It's annoying having different people pop into a thread over and over and keep bringing up the same shit. Reading for any substantial amount of time would make it clear.
+ Show Spoiler +The logic is that keeping certain traits of weapons that serve no legitimate uses for the public like fully automatic weapons, suppressors etc etc should be kept away from the public. I think we could agree that a M60 has no use for a civilian other than shits and giggles (let shit like that be at a range where you can rent it out for some fun). The problem is where you draw that line. In my opinion pistols serve no purpose other than self defence and should be restricted to the range/at home with heavy penalties for having them out side of the home. There should also be some form of licensing so you can own a weapon with background checks and firearms safety training. Sure criminals don't follow the laws but you can defend your home where you shouldn't have a duty to retreat.
|
On December 21 2012 15:59 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:53 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
It's one thing for criminals to break the law, it's another for laws to be so wholly ineffective that it essentially enables anyone to have access to dangerous weapons, regardless of background, education or training. Car thieves, with or without a drivers license, will find a way to steal cars. But licensing insures a mininum standard for people that own and drive cars, legally. It is a process that automatically deters and weeds out those that are mentally or physically incapable from driving cars. And the punishment for people that are caught driving a car illegally is clear -- even before they do anything that may lead to a fatality or tragedy. As it stands, legal gun owners have absolutely no credibility. As long as the standard to own and operate is so low (it's easier for a civilian to purchase and operate a gun than a police officer in-training), there claims that most gun owners are responsible are laughable. James Holmes, Adam Lanz and Seung-Hui Cho all acquired their arsenals legally. So what would stronger Gun Control legislation achieve? It would make it much harder for the mentally ill to acquire or access dangerous firearms, without assuming the risk of breaking the law outright. It would also IMPROVE and PROTECT the rights of responsible, experienced Gun Owners, by raising the standards of gun ownership overall. The analogy with licensing for vehicles is a poor one. The presumption you make is that firearm fatalities are largely accidents. I disagree that GUN CONTROL will make it more difficult for people who are mentally unqualified to possess firearms to do so. How do you propose to test mental qualification? If a wacko is determined to legally obtain a firearm, they will simply lie. If for some reason they are not able to legally obtain the firearm, they will simply go outside of the law. Problem not solved!
Doesn't matter, there's a lot of room for improvement.
Most States Lag on Submitting Mental-Health Records to the F.B.I.
|
On December 21 2012 15:59 Maxyim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2012 15:53 Defacer wrote:On December 21 2012 15:34 Maxyim wrote:
Q - What is the logic of GUN CONTROL legislation when criminals and psychos tend to NOT FOLLOW THE LAW? What exactly do you accomplish besides making things more difficult for law-abiding citizens?
It's one thing for criminals to break the law, it's another for laws to be so wholly ineffective that it essentially enables anyone to have access to dangerous weapons, regardless of background, education or training. Car thieves, with or without a drivers license, will find a way to steal cars. But licensing insures a mininum standard for people that own and drive cars, legally. It is a process that automatically deters and weeds out those that are mentally or physically incapable from driving cars. And the punishment for people that are caught driving a car illegally is clear -- even before they do anything that may lead to a fatality or tragedy. As it stands, legal gun owners have absolutely no credibility. As long as the standard to own and operate is so low (it's easier for a civilian to purchase and operate a gun than a police officer in-training), there claims that most gun owners are responsible are laughable. James Holmes, Adam Lanz and Seung-Hui Cho all acquired their arsenals legally. So what would stronger Gun Control legislation achieve? It would make it much harder for the mentally ill to acquire or access dangerous firearms, without assuming the risk of breaking the law outright. It would also IMPROVE and PROTECT the rights of responsible, experienced Gun Owners, by raising the standards of gun ownership overall. The analogy with licensing for vehicles is a poor one. The presumption you make is that firearm fatalities are largely accidents. I disagree that GUN CONTROL will make it more difficult for people who are mentally unqualified to possess firearms to do so. How do you propose to test mental qualification? If a wacko is determined to legally obtain a firearm, they will simply lie. If for some reason they are not able to legally obtain the firearm, they will simply go outside of the law. Problem not solved! If anyone wants to hear my solution to the public / school shooting epidemic, I will gladly share it, although I doubt that you left-wing types will like it much... ;-)
A background check isn't "hey are you a criminal/insane?" "no" "enjoy your gun sir". It's pretty clear most of these shooting the people were on anti-psychotics so that would leave an easy to detect paper trail.
^well shit. So the FBI can request mental health records and the states can kinda just not hand them in? Isn't that like illegal or something lol?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
