|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
The Forensic Panelchairman, Dr.Michael Welner who is a forensic psychiatrist, described a broad profile of Stephen Paddock, the Las Vegas mass murderer. I was surprised that he never touched on the compulsive gambling issue, but he did indicate the following:
quote: According to the doctor it’s the constant drumbeat coming from the mainstream media that allowed Paddock to feel righteously justified in committing mass murder So here is my take on this. Right now, the Right Wing is in control. They are backed by the vast money of the N.R.A. and in addition, are fueling a culture of paranoia that depicts America struggling against the evil in the world, such as Kim Jong Un. The Republican majority most definitely does not want to focus on the issue of gun violence or gun ownership rights. our own jar has himself stated that its not the guns...its the people. So its a cultural makeover that is needed. The right-wing ideology depicts a hostile world with many enemies. They salute and glorify police and military personnel. Our culture is authoritarian. The fear of a globalist agenda is being presented as part of the counter agenda of the nationalist right wing. Of course, the leftist ideology is in control of much of the media...though unlike Faith, I do not demonize leftist ideology as any worse than far-right authoritarian ideology. I too believe that it is the people. On a bad day, I might blame Satan, but I will agree that it is our collective responsibility to understand our national psychosis. Edited by Phat, : No reason given. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Reading that I have to ask if the guy is even a real forensic psychiatrist. It looks like a nasty attempt to forestall any call for restrictions on gun ownership, and suppress criticism of the far right. Even a veiled threat that verges on terrorism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
It doesn't matter if silencers have good effects. We ban things because of the bad effects. Everything has bad effects. There must be at least some kind of weighing. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) I was thinking as long as I have my hands up they’re not going to shoot me. This is what I’m thinking they’re not going to shoot me. Wow, was I wrong. -- Charles Kinsey We got a thousand points of light for the homeless man. We've got a kinder, gentler, machine gun hand. Neil Young, Rockin' in the Free World. Worrying about the "browning of America" is not racism. -- Faith I hate you all, you hate me -- Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Percy writes: A more meaningful correlation for comparing countries would be between the homicide rate and the gun ownership rate, where the number of guns owned isn't considered. The gun ownership rate could be by household or by individual. That makes sense, I think. I'm not good at visualizing "rates" in my head... it takes me a while. But this would imply: IF gun-purchase-rate in the US went down (let's say... everyone stopped acquiring more guns for whatever reason)THEN homicide rate would drop as well? Even though the "amount of guns existing in the public" is a very high number. That makes a certain amount of sense. Like you're saying... the gun collector thing.Those that collect guns, buy 1 every now and then and store them. Barely (perhaps even never) using them. However, if there's trouble-a-foot (like, a gang war or large-scale intentions of violence) then there's a motivation to acquire "more and more and more" guns... and use them. This would drive the rate-of-gun-ownership up. Is that the general idea?That makes sense to me. Here's a scatterplot I made and posted in Message 3018. It shows that by state there is no apparent relationship between gun prevalence and gun homicides: Right.This seems similar to the scatter plot I linked to in the article (#18). As you're saying... number of total guns doesn't seem to make much difference... but the rate at which guns are being acquired does. This graph shows how "total guns doesn't seem to make much difference..." but doesn't show anything about the rate at which guns are being acquired. I think? Here's a great paper originally posted in Message 3151 that found that each percentage point increase in gun ownership resulted in a .9% increase in gun homicide: This one I find confusing again.Is this saying that the number of guns does make a difference? More guns = more homicide, regardless of rate-of-acquisition? I suppose if the rate is increasing... and this results in more homicides... then during that time of rate-increase a graph that shows number-of-guns vs. number-of-homicides will show that more guns = more homicides. We would need another graph of number of guns vs. homicides after the rate stopped increasing in order to see if it's just the rate or number-of-guns alone. Perhaps that's my problem causing confusion? Just the timing at which certain data points are selected for viewing purposes? Edited by Stile, : Wrong quote name
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
One thing is pretty certain ...
People who kill with guns are more likely to (be in households that) own the guns than be people (in households) that don't own guns. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
Fundamental to the gun debate is an inherent disagreement about the dangers of guns. Gun nuts think guns make you safer, sane people understand that guns are inherently dangerous. Safely acquiring a gun for protection requires training and periodic retraining and practice and figuring out how to store the gun safely and also figuring out how a safely stored gun is going to be available for protection and being vigilant about never leaving the gun out and never leaving the safety off and never having the gun loaded (again leaving open the question of how it provides protection) and knowing that you will never become sad or mentally ill or angry. Once all these issues have been addressed (and probably other issues I've forgotten) only then is the gun safe.
Gun nuts don't find these issues of particular concern but instead continually assert, without evidence, that guns make you safer. That's why that paper (The Relationship Between Gun Ownership and Firearm Homicide Rates in the United States, 1981—2010 that's now behind a paywall) and others like it (don't particularly feel like conducting a research search at the moment, maybe later) are so important. They show unequivocally that increases in gun ownership leads to increases in gun homicide. I won't comment about the rest of your post about rates, other than to say that I agree that there is something different about the way you're looking at rates. I don't believe there are any studies about the outcomes of changes in the gun acquisition rate. It has been said many times that even if Americans stopped buying guns today, there are already so many guns in the population and guns wear out so slowly that it would be literally decades before this reduction in gun buying to zero would have any effect. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Percy writes: I won't comment about the rest of your post about rates, other than to say that I agree that there is something different about the way you're looking at rates. I don't believe there are any studies about the outcomes of changes in the gun acquisition rate. Does anyone else want to comment on my confusion about the rates? I'm just trying to understand the seeming-contradiction between the scatter plots and the bar graphs. Scatter plots seem to imply that number of guns has no connection with number of homicides.Bar graphs seem to imply that more guns = more homicides. Both results (no connection vs. more = more) can't be right at the same time. I'm just trying to understand an explanation for this discrepancy in the data. Is someone creating graphs to make it look better for one side over the other?If so, how? Is there a mundane explanation (like the one about rates) that explains the issue?If so, what is the proper understanding? (Does more guns only = more homicides when the rate of gun acquisition is increasing?) Is someone simply fudging the data?If so, how? |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Of course, the leftist ideology is in control of much of the media...
But alas, you have no data or evidence to back this upFacts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
I suppose it was an assumption. Lemme do a bit of googling and sift through the propaganda... and while I'm at it I'll make another assumption. This whole idea of "fake news" has some validity in my mind and I dont believe that it is either a Leftist plot or a Far Right plot. These days there is so much information out there and it cannot be taken without question. When I was growing up, we had the World Book Encyclopedia as our internet, and it was usually a trusted source. These days, however, I can find ten articles on the internet and need to actively discriminate as to the best most accurate one.
If I run it through my bias towards Theism, Conservativism or Liberalism, I will arrive at differing lists for the most accurate. How does one remain unbiased when choosing which sources are the closest to the truth?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
The problem in the US is that those that know guns the most(The NRA) are writing the laws. Then they get their stooges in congress to pass them. Or they get their stooges to block any law they do not like.
This whole hunters need silencers is a red herring. I hunt, I have shot guns since I was a teen. When I shoot I use hearing protection. If you do not wear hearing protection that is your problem. The sound of gun fire allows for safe discharge of weapons. Also, here in the country it allows us to know if someone is illegally shooting or poaching on our property. In the last 5 years I have caught 5 poachers because of the sound of gunfire. Also, people shoot on public land around here. The sound of gunfire is an effective warning signal. No one has yet produced an adequate reasonable argument why a legal, ethical hunter needs a suppressor. Maybe you can be the first.Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Theodoric Member Posts: 9076 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: Member Rating: 3.7
|
Here is a good place for you to start. Look at the ownership of media outlets. Don't fall for propaganda do your own research.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts "God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness. If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18262 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.1 |
PaulK writes: Well, I saw him on a conservative news source: Fox & Friends. Evidently he is the real deal, although I agree that his answer seemed designed to strike back at liberal criticism...so his "authority" is being used to strike a blow in favor of far right ideology against leftist ideology. Reading that I have to ask if the guy is even a real forensic psychiatrist. It looks like a nasty attempt to forestall any call for restrictions on gun ownership, and suppress criticism of the far right. Even a veiled threat that verges on terrorism. Were it I, I would have added two observations. 1) The overwhelming majority of mass killers who use guns are male. Guns are a phallic symbol of aggression.2) The compulsive gambling is a huge issue as to what may have triggered his obsessive, detached outburst. Also a reason why he may have been suicidal to begin with. An angry white male. Was his attack politically motivated? Was he one of Trumps base? If so, why kill country music folks? They are Trumps base too, 60% or so plus. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith An atheist is someone who has no invisible means of support~Bishop Fulton J.Sheen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I doubt he bothered to gather much information at all.
I would add that those who kill to publicise a cause generally advertise their cause. He didn't. He may have intended to kill people at an earlier musical event, too, so I don't think we can assume that he particularly cared who he killed. Notoriety seems a more likely motivation since he would get that just by killing enough people. It may not be his actual motive, but it seems likelier than killing for a cause.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 411 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
Who said otherwise?
Everything has bad effects. There must be at least some kind of weighing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22391 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
PaulK writes: Notoriety seems a more likely motivation since he would get that just by killing enough people. It may not be his actual motive, but it seems likelier than killing for a cause. My guess for a driving factor for ending his life is that he was running out of money, or that he was seriously in debt. I think the $100,000 he sent his girlfriend was about all that was left, within a $100,000 or two. I understand that this guess doesn't help with divining his motivation for going out in an orgy of murder. --Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024