|
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 May 04 2013 08:25 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Ok. So they should just not do any research, because it'll be biased, or inaccurate, and not try anything they might suggest
I guess I should just stop posting, because you will just misrepresent everything I say:
Thus, giving us something to consider when analyzing it. It doesn't mean their data is useless, but we have to consider it to be slightly slanted. Then we have to look at other data and compare it.
|
lol, you edited that in after i wrote a reply, my mistake. it's a little more reasonable than when didn't have the second part. i don't see why it must be considered slightly slanted though.
|
Not taking sides on this argument but as far as research is concerned, especially anything related to sociology/psychology there will always be bias that has to be taken into account because there is no such thing as an unbiased human being; we're products of our environment.
And @ kmillz i think you meant global warming, instead of climate change in one of your earlier posts. Climate change is a constant, scientists are debating the direction and causes though.
GL HF in another productive ~500 pages
|
On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:@ Elem and Sunprince The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. You can improve conditions that make making mistakes more difficult (even crimes), and more forgiving. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the entire Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down. It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist" + Show Spoiler +Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either.
And 100k people die every year in the US due to alcohol. You don't hear cries for registration and background checks and mental health exams for alcohol.
Which says to me, its not about the deaths. At least not totally. They may want to save lives, but only if it doesn't inconvenience them. They don't really care for guns, but they do enjoy a drink now and then. They see alcohol as more valuable to society, so the deaths are sad but acceptable. But they don't care about guns, so hell, lets legislate them away. This isn't some conscious decision, (at least I hope not) but alcohol is more socially accepted in their circles, so it just never occurs to them to consider restricting that.
|
On May 04 2013 08:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
lol, you edited that in after i wrote a reply, my mistake. it's a little more reasonable than when didn't have the second part. i don't see why it must be considered slightly slanted though.
Yeah sorry I have a tendency to post too early or with mistakes alot >_>
I completely support the idea of having gun laws to keep us safe, but I think any major changes at this point will have minimum gain in lives saved for the amount of restrictions imposed. If we want to save lives we have to stop people from being murderers and making guns harder to obtain will simply not do that. I don't think we need to loosen the laws at all, I just think they are about right.
On May 04 2013 08:34 Parametric wrote:
Not taking sides on this argument but as far as research is concerned, especially anything related to sociology/psychology there will always be bias that has to be taken into account because there is no such thing as an unbiased human being; we're products of our environment.
And @ kmillz i think you meant global warming, instead of climate change in one of your earlier posts. Climate change is a constant, scientists are debating the direction and causes though.
GL HF in another productive ~500 pages
I did mean global warming, I just thought that the name has been changed to "climate change". At least I think that's what NASA is calling it these days lol.
|
On May 04 2013 08:37 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 08:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
lol, you edited that in after i wrote a reply, my mistake. it's a little more reasonable than when didn't have the second part. i don't see why it must be considered slightly slanted though. Yeah sorry I have a tendency to post too early or with mistakes alot >_> I completely support the idea of having gun laws to keep us safe, but I think any major changes at this point will have minimum gain in lives saved for the amount of restrictions imposed. If we want to save lives we have to stop people from being murderers and making guns harder to obtain will simply not do that. I don't think we need to loosen the laws at all, I just think they are about right. Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 08:34 Parametric wrote:
Not taking sides on this argument but as far as research is concerned, especially anything related to sociology/psychology there will always be bias that has to be taken into account because there is no such thing as an unbiased human being; we're products of our environment.
And @ kmillz i think you meant global warming, instead of climate change in one of your earlier posts. Climate change is a constant, scientists are debating the direction and causes though.
GL HF in another productive ~500 pages I did mean global warming, I just thought that the name has been changed to "climate change". At least I think that's what NASA is calling it these days lol.
How you know that without any data. You think. Aha.
|
On May 04 2013 08:34 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:@ Elem and Sunprince The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. You can improve conditions that make making mistakes more difficult (even crimes), and more forgiving. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the entire Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down. It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist" + Show Spoiler +Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either. And 100k people die every year in the US due to alcohol. You don't hear cries for registration and background checks and mental health exams for alcohol. Which says to me, its not about the deaths. At least not totally. They may want to save lives, but only if it doesn't inconvenience them. They don't really care for guns, but they do enjoy a drink now and then. They see alcohol as more valuable to society, so the deaths are sad but acceptable. But they don't care about guns, so hell, lets legislate them away. This isn't some conscious decision, (at least I hope not) but alcohol is more socially accepted in their circles, so it just never occurs to them to consider restricting that.
Yeah, those guys are probably gun-hating alcoholics.
Or maybe you cant compare these two topics as easily as you think.
|
On May 04 2013 08:45 Nachtwind wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 08:37 kmillz wrote:On May 04 2013 08:29 FallDownMarigold wrote:
lol, you edited that in after i wrote a reply, my mistake. it's a little more reasonable than when didn't have the second part. i don't see why it must be considered slightly slanted though. Yeah sorry I have a tendency to post too early or with mistakes alot >_> I completely support the idea of having gun laws to keep us safe, but I think any major changes at this point will have minimum gain in lives saved for the amount of restrictions imposed. If we want to save lives we have to stop people from being murderers and making guns harder to obtain will simply not do that. I don't think we need to loosen the laws at all, I just think they are about right. On May 04 2013 08:34 Parametric wrote:
Not taking sides on this argument but as far as research is concerned, especially anything related to sociology/psychology there will always be bias that has to be taken into account because there is no such thing as an unbiased human being; we're products of our environment.
And @ kmillz i think you meant global warming, instead of climate change in one of your earlier posts. Climate change is a constant, scientists are debating the direction and causes though.
GL HF in another productive ~500 pages I did mean global warming, I just thought that the name has been changed to "climate change". At least I think that's what NASA is calling it these days lol. How you know that without any data. You think. Aha.
Because the data is impossible to obtain. How can I possibly quantify every single factor that contributes to the number of gun related crimes? How can you quantify rights and restrictions? What data do you have that says imposing "x" restriction on guns will save "x" lives?
I obviously value those rights more than you do, obviously our opinions on how to quantify rights would be different. You might not give a shit about guns, but alot of other people do. You might not care for having a weapon for self-defense, but a 110 lb woman living in an urban area riddled with crime might. Putting restrictions on guns might save a couple hundred lives in a year. It could also result in less people having the means to defend themselves and in turn result in possibly more people dying that way, so you can't just say "LOL NO DATA" to discredit my opinion.
|
The data is not impossible to obtain. There happens to be little because little has been tried, and research is stifled, no thanks in part to the NRA. You don't need to do what you're asking. You can make predictions based on generalized public health models and try things, just as has been done in many other examples.
Also, do you have all of this settled data on carrying guns making things significantly better? Share? Comparable sources
|
On May 04 2013 08:11 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:@ Elem and Sunprince The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down. It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist" + Show Spoiler +Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either. Lol just because you can't convince someone to agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, nor does it mean the discussion is pointless. I could just as easily say the exact same stupid shit to you. You seem to have a lack of comprehension or understanding of any of the most compelling arguments in support of gun rights, so how about we drop the "you are willingly ignorant" nonsense? Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 07:32 AdamBanks wrote:Im all for rights, how about we make it a right not to be surrounded by handguns 24/7 365, id vote for that. The last kid in the news who got shot could have used that right alot more then the right to have a .22 at age 5 edit: daamn elm, i can feel your scathing rebuke from down here.  First of all, who is "surrounded by handguns 24/7 365" ??? Second of all, you can't say it's my right to take away your right. That's the same logic as saying "tolerate my intolerance".
Last I checked there were are 88.8 guns for every 100 Americans (small arms survey 2007), maybe I exaggerated slightly. Second of all I can say or type just about anything I want be it logical or illogical as long as its up to par with the commandments (TL's not the bible). AND that statement itself is not illogical, its hypocritical. Tolerate my intolerance parses out atomically without producing a contradiction of terms.
Judges say its my right to take away your right quiet often, figuratively speaking.
|
On May 04 2013 08:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The data is not impossible to obtain. There happens to be little because little has been tried, and research is stifled, no thanks in part to the NRA. You don't need to do what you're asking. You can make predictions based on generalized public health models and try things, just as has been done in many other examples.
Also, do you have all of this settled data on carrying guns making things significantly better? Share? Comparable sources
Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes?
The data you would need to find the source of gun violence lies in human psychology, not access to guns.
On May 04 2013 09:03 AdamBanks wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 08:11 kmillz wrote:On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:@ Elem and Sunprince The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down. It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist" + Show Spoiler +Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either. Lol just because you can't convince someone to agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, nor does it mean the discussion is pointless. I could just as easily say the exact same stupid shit to you. You seem to have a lack of comprehension or understanding of any of the most compelling arguments in support of gun rights, so how about we drop the "you are willingly ignorant" nonsense? On May 04 2013 07:32 AdamBanks wrote:Im all for rights, how about we make it a right not to be surrounded by handguns 24/7 365, id vote for that. The last kid in the news who got shot could have used that right alot more then the right to have a .22 at age 5 edit: daamn elm, i can feel your scathing rebuke from down here. First of all, who is "surrounded by handguns 24/7 365" ??? Second of all, you can't say it's my right to take away your right. That's the same logic as saying "tolerate my intolerance". Last I checked there were are 88.8 guns for every 100 Americans (small arms survey 2007), maybe I exaggerated slightly. Second of all I can say or type just about anything I want be it logical or illogical as long as its up to par with the commandments (TL's not the bible). AND that statement itself is not illogical, its hypocritical. Tolerate my intolerance parses out atomically without producing a contradiction of terms. Judges say its my right to take away your right quiet often, figuratively speaking.
Saying it's my right to take away your right is hypocritical and irrational, just as saying tolerate my intolerance is hypocritical and irrational.
You did exaggerate and more than slightly, it isn't like 9/10 people are walking around with loaded guns at their disposal, I imagine a vast majority of them keep their guns at home.
|
Interesting opinion, I guess we'll disagree whether measures toward more gun responsibility would have a positive effect
|
On May 04 2013 09:09 FallDownMarigold wrote:
Interesting opinion, I guess we'll disagree whether measured toward more gun responsibility would have a positive effect
I'll add to that socio-economic influences on the people of an area that in-turn makes things "shittier" in different parts of the world would also be a major contribution to the behavior of people in those areas. All I'm saying is that it's a very complex matter and it is difficult to quantify any of it.
|
No one is trying to quantify any of it. You have numbers, and you have ways to attempt to decrease those numbers, without knowing in advance by specifically how much you will reduce those numbers
|
On May 04 2013 09:14 FallDownMarigold wrote:
No one is trying to quantify any of it. You have numbers, and you have ways to attempt to decrease those numbers, without knowing in advance by specifically how much you will reduce those numbers
So attempting to reduce numbers at the cost of others freedoms without any significant data to prove that those numbers will even show seems like a good idea to you?
|
How about we start with more research to gather the data you're asking about
|
On May 04 2013 08:46 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 08:34 Millitron wrote:On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:@ Elem and Sunprince The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. You can improve conditions that make making mistakes more difficult (even crimes), and more forgiving. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the entire Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down. It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist" + Show Spoiler +Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either. And 100k people die every year in the US due to alcohol. You don't hear cries for registration and background checks and mental health exams for alcohol. Which says to me, its not about the deaths. At least not totally. They may want to save lives, but only if it doesn't inconvenience them. They don't really care for guns, but they do enjoy a drink now and then. They see alcohol as more valuable to society, so the deaths are sad but acceptable. But they don't care about guns, so hell, lets legislate them away. This isn't some conscious decision, (at least I hope not) but alcohol is more socially accepted in their circles, so it just never occurs to them to consider restricting that. Yeah, those guys are probably gun-hating alcoholics. Or maybe you cant compare these two topics as easily as you think.
Didn't say they were alcoholics or that they hated guns. Just that they care more about alcohol than guns.
|
On May 04 2013 09:07 kmillz wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 08:57 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The data is not impossible to obtain. There happens to be little because little has been tried, and research is stifled, no thanks in part to the NRA. You don't need to do what you're asking. You can make predictions based on generalized public health models and try things, just as has been done in many other examples.
Also, do you have all of this settled data on carrying guns making things significantly better? Share? Comparable sources Gun loving switzerland is a pretty good example of guns being everywhere and things being just great. Strict gun laws in Chicago don't seem to working too well. Why is that? Could it possibly be that the number of guns in an area have a very insignificant impact on the violent crimes? The data you would need to find the source of gun violence lies in human psychology, not access to guns. Show nested quote +On May 04 2013 09:03 AdamBanks wrote:On May 04 2013 08:11 kmillz wrote:On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:@ Elem and Sunprince The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down. It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist" + Show Spoiler +Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either. Lol just because you can't convince someone to agree with you doesn't make them ignorant, nor does it mean the discussion is pointless. I could just as easily say the exact same stupid shit to you. You seem to have a lack of comprehension or understanding of any of the most compelling arguments in support of gun rights, so how about we drop the "you are willingly ignorant" nonsense? On May 04 2013 07:32 AdamBanks wrote:Im all for rights, how about we make it a right not to be surrounded by handguns 24/7 365, id vote for that. The last kid in the news who got shot could have used that right alot more then the right to have a .22 at age 5 edit: daamn elm, i can feel your scathing rebuke from down here. First of all, who is "surrounded by handguns 24/7 365" ??? Second of all, you can't say it's my right to take away your right. That's the same logic as saying "tolerate my intolerance". Last I checked there were are 88.8 guns for every 100 Americans (small arms survey 2007), maybe I exaggerated slightly. Second of all I can say or type just about anything I want be it logical or illogical as long as its up to par with the commandments (TL's not the bible). AND that statement itself is not illogical, its hypocritical. Tolerate my intolerance parses out atomically without producing a contradiction of terms. Judges say its my right to take away your right quiet often, figuratively speaking. Saying it's my right to take away your right is hypocritical and irrational, just as saying tolerate my intolerance is hypocritical and irrational. You did exaggerate and more than slightly, it isn't like 9/10 people are walking around with loaded guns at their disposal, I imagine a vast majority of them keep their guns at home.
I just want to note, that Switzerland has a population of 8 million people and is one of the richest countries in the world. Their military is almost entirely conscripted. All men in Switzerland are required to undergo compulsory military service at 19, and keep personally assigned equipment, including weapons, at home.
Not only are many guns issued directly from the government and in a sense 'registered', most civilians have training that far exceeds that of the average US gun owner. Comparing Chicago and Switzerland is like comparing apples with zebras.
|
Also, DeepElemBlues, I laughed a bit at your outright lie about having read only 1 link due to there having been only 1 link initially. How is it possible that when I first posted the summary containing links to 4 papers, that only 1 was present? There are no edits to that post. It always had 4 papers linked. You simply did not read before you hastily crapped out one of the most ignorant posts in this thread -- and now you're insisting that isn't the case, further proving how ridiculous you are. It's hard to take anything you say seriously knowing that about you. The attack about some alleged psychological problem as an ad hominem doesn't help either.
This is the post I replied to first which only has one link and a long quote from it.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=476#9506
My post here quoting your post with 4 link.
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=478#9560
The first word is "Again" because I had referenced your 1-link post in earlier posts of mine without directly linking to it. That's why I wrote "Again."
So can you please give this up now I don't want to argue about it anymore. This whole kerfuffle is a misunderstanding caused by you, que ironico, not reading my posts closely enough.
It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist"
I say it is being used as propaganda right here, which it is.
I disagree with most of the suggestions in the papers. So what? Better mental health checks are fine with me, for example.
The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down.
I don't see what the first half of this monster paragraph has to do with anything. Their ideas for making gun deaths go down seem to mostly be putting a significant burden on both gun use and gun purchasing and gun manufacturing, to a degree I consider unconstitutional. And also the papers call for a propaganda campaign themselves. That is also what I was talking about. They say flat-out that attitudes and thinking about guns needs to change for a significant amount of people for these measures to be possible, and support such a change taking place.
This is all very standard for any campaign to change public opinion. I don't object to it that's just part of living in a free society, people can try to persuade you. I do object to this presumption that rationality and such are now on your side just because some medical journal gave some ideas for reducing gun violence.
|
On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:
The authors have an agenda. But why is that a bad thing? Their agenda is seeing less people die not necessarily and only due to firearms alone but due to environments and factors that include firearms. They don't attack because they want to see firearms disappear. They don't want to kill the second amendment. They don't hate the US constitution. The don't hate America. They just want to see the overall numbers involving gun deaths go down, in any way possible. They are concerned with the overall population, not with any one incident or individual. It turns out that you can't always blame the victim/perpetrator in a public health concern, based on many previous examples. You can improve conditions that make making mistakes more difficult (even crimes), and more forgiving. Whether it's a crime or accident does not affect anything. Each year in the US, more civilians die to guns than in the entire Iraq + Aghanistan war, etc. They don't need any of the small steps to outright eliminate gun problems, but the idea is that over a longer period of time, numbers will go down. Not disappear, but down.
Hopefully you've been paying attention to what I've been saying in this thread, because I've clearly stated multiple times that I am a strong advocate of firearms regulation. Essentially, I think that they should be at least as heavily regulated as vehicles.
However, the notion that the root of our violence problem stems from firearms, rather than a number of deeper underlying causes that cause that violence in the first place, is simply scapegoating and magical thinking. You want to fix our violence problem, and not simply change which weapons are used to carry it out? Start looking at the causes of violent crime and high suicide rates.
On May 04 2013 07:31 FallDownMarigold wrote:
It's clear that no amount of perspectives apart from your own understanding of what you think is right will convince you otherwise. So.. you are both are willingly ignorant imo. There is no need to continue the discussion with either of you if you're jut gonna stick to "it's propaganda, and it's not a criminologist"
The point is that you're choosing to ignore decades of legitimate non-partisan criminological research in favor of a single politically motivated article (from the wrong field, no less) written recently to be used as fuel in a partisan debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
