|
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. |
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/01/obama-lifts-ban-on-funding-gun-v.html
Everyone in this thread has strong opinions. Nobody in this thread is an expert in gun violence, despite what sociology Ph.D's you may have or how fast you can field strip your rifle. Even the recent discussion about the qualifications of law enforcement brought to light that police only have a narrow window into the issue.
In the 90's, NRA successfully lobbied to effectively ban gun-violence research. The Obama administration is trying to undo that ban, and investigate the causes of gun violence. This is including the influence of movies, video games, etc.
I trust the CDC more than TL members.
|
On February 06 2013 11:44 Shiragaku wrote:
All right guys, I am bring back English class.
On Facebook, almost every single pro-gun (anti-gun is starting to pick up) image features an attractive woman posing with a gun with a caption supporting their position. Can anyone relate and does the symbolism in these images worry you?
The images are designed to appeal to men. Men are more likely to support or potentially support firearms rights, whereas women are more likely to oppose or potentially oppose them.
In general, most political issues that break down to freedom vs security typically have a lopsided gender ratio with men favoring freedom and women favoring security. Accordingly, smart lobbyists will appeal to the appropriate demographic in their advertising, the same way that smart film producers will aim ads for certain film genres at specific demographics.
|
On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate ![[image loading]](http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/6107_10100113177793196_1664301245_n.jpg) Murders using guns ![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65311000/gif/_65311537_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif) These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get.
Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation.
And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well.
|
|
|
On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well.
Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis.
Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?"
Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?"
Test: "Wrong"
Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?"
Test: "Flies do!"
Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots."
It also works for guns.
Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths"
Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?"
Test: .......
So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something.
Example:
Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys.
Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me?
Test: Yo babe, you still love me?
Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me.
So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer.
|
To put it in logic terms. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition which is obviously what he meant. Posting a wikipedia article that says in strict formal logic implies means something different than in common parlance. is a terrible rebuttal.
|
"In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe."
I like this argument a lot, but having simple & easy access to guns just exacerbates problems listed above.
|
Amazing! Motor vehicle safety has increased dramatically in the past 10 years! I'm pretty sure we can all agree a drastic reduction in traffic fatalities is irrelevant to the discussion of gun control. Gun violence isn't increasing, it's decreasing albeit not as fast as traffic fatalities.
|
On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis. Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?" Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?" Test: "Wrong" Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?" Test: "Flies do!" Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots." It also works for guns. Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths" Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?" Test: ....... So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something. Example: Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys. Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me? Test: Yo babe, you still love me? Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me. So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer.
Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained.
The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations.
Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor.
|
On February 08 2013 07:45 TheFrankOne wrote:
To put it in logic terms. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition which is obviously what he meant. Posting a wikipedia article that says in strict formal logic implies means something different than in common parlance. is a terrible rebuttal.
Nice job ignoring everything else I wrote which explains why the correlation in this case does not imply causation.
On February 08 2013 07:49 Gescom wrote:
"In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe."
I like this argument a lot, but having simple & easy access to guns just exacerbates problems listed above.
It might, but it's not as simple as "removing all guns means less violent crime". For one thing, many of the violent crimes will simply be committed with other weapons instead.
Example: much of the gun deaths in the United States stem from gang-related violence. Even if you could somehow completely deny such criminals firearms access, they're still going to do things like fight each other for territory, only the deaths will come from blades and blunt weapons instead (see: gang activity in Europe and Asia where firearms possession is far lower).
|
On February 08 2013 11:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 07:45 TheFrankOne wrote:
To put it in logic terms. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition which is obviously what he meant. Posting a wikipedia article that says in strict formal logic implies means something different than in common parlance. is a terrible rebuttal. Nice job ignoring everything else I wrote which explains why the correlation in this case does not imply causation. Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 07:49 Gescom wrote:
"In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe."
I like this argument a lot, but having simple & easy access to guns just exacerbates problems listed above. It might, but it's not as simple as "removing all guns means less violent crime". For one thing, many of the violent crimes will simply be committed with other weapons instead. Example: much of the gun deaths in the United States stem from gang-related violence. Even if you could somehow completely deny such criminals firearms access, they're still going to do things like fight each other for territory, only the deaths will come from blades and blunt weapons instead (see: gang activity in Europe and Asia where firearms possession is far lower).
Other weapons are generally less effective, though, so it could still have a marked positive impact on public health.
|
On February 08 2013 16:31 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 11:03 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:45 TheFrankOne wrote:
To put it in logic terms. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition which is obviously what he meant. Posting a wikipedia article that says in strict formal logic implies means something different than in common parlance. is a terrible rebuttal. Nice job ignoring everything else I wrote which explains why the correlation in this case does not imply causation. On February 08 2013 07:49 Gescom wrote:
"In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe."
I like this argument a lot, but having simple & easy access to guns just exacerbates problems listed above. It might, but it's not as simple as "removing all guns means less violent crime". For one thing, many of the violent crimes will simply be committed with other weapons instead. Example: much of the gun deaths in the United States stem from gang-related violence. Even if you could somehow completely deny such criminals firearms access, they're still going to do things like fight each other for territory, only the deaths will come from blades and blunt weapons instead (see: gang activity in Europe and Asia where firearms possession is far lower). Other weapons are generally less effective, though, so it could still have a marked positive impact on public health.
We could make a much greater positive impact on public health by focusing on the root causes of violent crime, and at substantially lower cost to civil liberty.
In the meantime, proper gun control would include fixing the background check system, prohibiting high-risk individuals from purchasing guns, and providing the ATFadequate resources and authority to engage in oversight of gun dealers.
|
Moral argument: let's forbid guns so that we can lower crime and save people.
Solution: government passes a law and the problem will be solved.
But we aren't talking about true gun control, removing guns from society, just about centralizing weaponry in the lands of the state. If the police/military laid down their guns then private citizens would be more inclined to do so as well.
Otherwise is to create a double standard. Guns only in the hands of government and police.
To solve the problem of the moral argument laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. Mandatory penalties for using a firearm in a violent crime in 1975 led to: Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 11% in 15 years, South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990, Florida's homicide rate down 33% over a 17 year span, Delaware's homicide rate down 33% in a 19 year span, Montana's homicide rate down 42% from 1976-1992 and New Hampshire's homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992.
One interesting thing to note James Holmes, the Batman shooter, had 7 theatres nearby to choose from. He choose the furthest from his house because it was a gun-free zone.
|
Just came across a quote on gun control from the current police killer at large in California:
hmm. nevermind. Have a feeling the quote is fake
|
On February 08 2013 19:24 starcon wrote:
Moral argument: let's forbid guns so that we can lower crime and save people.
Solution: government passes a law and the problem will be solved.
But we aren't talking about true gun control, removing guns from society, just about centralizing weaponry in the lands of the state. If the police/military laid down their guns then private citizens would be more inclined to do so as well.
Otherwise is to create a double standard. Guns only in the hands of government and police.
To solve the problem of the moral argument laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. Mandatory penalties for using a firearm in a violent crime in 1975 led to: Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 11% in 15 years, South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990, Florida's homicide rate down 33% over a 17 year span, Delaware's homicide rate down 33% in a 19 year span, Montana's homicide rate down 42% from 1976-1992 and New Hampshire's homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992.
One interesting thing to note James Holmes, the Batman shooter, had 7 theatres nearby to choose from. He choose the furthest from his house because it was a gun-free zone.
What do you mean by this? That he picked a movie theater because he knew the customers wouldn't have guns to shoot back?
|
On February 08 2013 11:03 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 07:45 TheFrankOne wrote:
To put it in logic terms. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition which is obviously what he meant. Posting a wikipedia article that says in strict formal logic implies means something different than in common parlance. is a terrible rebuttal. Nice job ignoring everything else I wrote which explains why the correlation in this case does not imply causation.
Your Wiki article still doesn't support your point at all.
Secondly, as far as I know the US doesn't have a very high violent crime rate and as far as I can tell you have no sources. We have an outlier murder rate and our other crime rates are hovering around most developed nations, who aren't exactly utopian worlds themselves.
Top Ten List
![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg)
US rate is at 448.
Burglary
|
What is treated as "violent crime" im sure varies in some way from country to country. I wouldn't trust those numbers that much.
|
I don't put a huge amount of faith into them, but sunprince has been question begging by claiming the US has a very high violent crime rate, which as far as I can find, isn't true.
|
On February 09 2013 00:09 LOveRH wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 19:24 starcon wrote:
Moral argument: let's forbid guns so that we can lower crime and save people.
Solution: government passes a law and the problem will be solved.
But we aren't talking about true gun control, removing guns from society, just about centralizing weaponry in the lands of the state. If the police/military laid down their guns then private citizens would be more inclined to do so as well.
Otherwise is to create a double standard. Guns only in the hands of government and police.
To solve the problem of the moral argument laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. Mandatory penalties for using a firearm in a violent crime in 1975 led to: Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 11% in 15 years, South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990, Florida's homicide rate down 33% over a 17 year span, Delaware's homicide rate down 33% in a 19 year span, Montana's homicide rate down 42% from 1976-1992 and New Hampshire's homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992.
One interesting thing to note James Holmes, the Batman shooter, had 7 theatres nearby to choose from. He choose the furthest from his house because it was a gun-free zone. What do you mean by this? That he picked a movie theater because he knew the customers wouldn't have guns to shoot back?
That's exactly it. The same logic is used for almost every mass shooting within the United States. I do not know of one that hasn't taken place in a gun-free zone.
|
On February 09 2013 01:02 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 00:09 LOveRH wrote:On February 08 2013 19:24 starcon wrote:
Moral argument: let's forbid guns so that we can lower crime and save people.
Solution: government passes a law and the problem will be solved.
But we aren't talking about true gun control, removing guns from society, just about centralizing weaponry in the lands of the state. If the police/military laid down their guns then private citizens would be more inclined to do so as well.
Otherwise is to create a double standard. Guns only in the hands of government and police.
To solve the problem of the moral argument laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. Mandatory penalties for using a firearm in a violent crime in 1975 led to: Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 11% in 15 years, South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990, Florida's homicide rate down 33% over a 17 year span, Delaware's homicide rate down 33% in a 19 year span, Montana's homicide rate down 42% from 1976-1992 and New Hampshire's homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992.
One interesting thing to note James Holmes, the Batman shooter, had 7 theatres nearby to choose from. He choose the furthest from his house because it was a gun-free zone. What do you mean by this? That he picked a movie theater because he knew the customers wouldn't have guns to shoot back? That's exactly it. The same logic is used for almost every mass shooting within the United States. I do not know of one that hasn't taken place in a gun-free zone.
Which is a pointless argument unless you suggest that 1) if there were no gun free zone he wouldn't have committed the crime or 2) the casualties would have been less if he had entered a theater where people could shoot back (questionable but could be a fair point). Both those points is very hard to prove either way, though the likelihood of 1) is pretty small.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg)
