|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control III | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
The October, 2017, issue of Scientific American ran the article More Guns Do Not Stop More Crimes, Evidence Shows (original title in the print version was Journey to Gunland). I'm not sure why the link works - usually Scientific American is very restrictive about what they make available online. I was at the library last Sunday, and I happened to grab that particular issue out of the stack of back issues. The October 2017 issue contained a number of articles on science and politics, something that was certainly topical at the time of the magazine's publication and I would recommend the entire issue as being worthwhile. I did not see anything particularly new in Gunland, but this article is a good summary and source of pointers to where you can find the real science. Gun control advocacy 101. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, the wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door! 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
The instructions accompanying the omnibus spending bill that Trump signed today includes this sentence:
quote: No funding was budgeted, but at least it's progress. Source: Is the return of government gun research near? --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22480 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.8
|
In my list of necessary actions promoting gun safety, the last and least likely was modification or repeal of the 2nd amendment. A surprising opinion piece appeared in today's New York Times by former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens: Repeal the Second Amendment. It's time.
As I argued a couple years ago in the predecessor thread, after a couple centuries the Bill of Rights now contains a few anachronisms. Soldiers are no longer billeted in private homes. A threshold of a matter of "twenty dollars" is ridiculously small for a right to trial by jury. "Well regulated Militias" have almost ceased to exist, those that do do not at all resemble the militias imagined by the 2nd amendment, and men no longer provide their own guns when joining the military. It's time for the 2nd amendment to go. Vehicular deaths are often compared with gun deaths because they're roughly equal in this country, but we not only compare poorly with other countries on gun deaths, but even on car deaths. Check out this table, numbers taken from Wikipedia:
We not only suck at gun safety, but even vehicular safety. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Typo.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Percy writes:
But as long as the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as applying to everybody, it makes sense to let everybody have military-type weapons - i.e. assault rifles. "Well regulated Militias" have almost ceased to exist, those that do do not at all resemble the militias imagined by the 2nd amendment, and men no longer provide their own guns when joining the military.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
ringo writes: But as long as the 2nd Amendment is interpreted as applying to everybody, it makes sense to let everybody have military-type weapons - i.e. assault rifles. I guess 'makes sense' means something different in the US. Something like 'makes no sense'.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The problem with a table like that is that particular areas in the US have a lot more gun deaths because they are crime-ridden areas, inner city areas where the statistics are enormously high. To include those statistics really doesn't give an accurate figure for the nation as a whole. Those aren't the areas where the second amendment is held in high esteem either, they are just violent criminals whose guns are mostly illegal anyway.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
The problem with a table like that is that particular areas in the US have a lot more gun deaths because they are crime-ridden areas, inner city areas where the statistics are enormously high. Like Alaska (56th most population dense with 20 deaths per 100K), Wyoming (55th) , Montana (54th), Oklahoma (41st) and Kentucky (28th 14 deaths per 100k), for instance - 5 of the top twenty states for gun death per capita.
Those aren't the areas where the second amendment is held in high esteem either, they are just violent criminals whose guns are mostly illegal anyway. Alaska (58% own guns), Wyoming (60% own guns) , Montana (58% own guns), Oklahoma (43% own guns) and Kentucky (48%) for instance. If only those densely populated areas could be like those quaint second amendment good old country boys like New York (7th most dense, 18% ownership, 4 deaths per 100k), Rhode Island (2nd most dense, 13% ownership, 5 per 100k), Massachusetts (3rd most dense, 13% ownership, 3 per 100k).... I understand your general point - but if you live in a low population density State there are more gun owners and more gun deaths -- you are more likely to die from a gun than in the notorious city areas. Trump's go to of Illinois is dense (12th most dense) has a gun ownership of 20% and a per capita gun death of 9in100k for example. And out there in Oklahoma I'm willing to bet those 43% aren't overwhelmingly illegally owning those weapons either.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I dunno, it keeps seeming odd to me, like density of the population itself is skewing something. I'm not very good at math so I could get this all wrong but here: if a state with a population of a million has an area where there are 200 deaths though there are none in the rest of the state, that works out to 20 deaths per 100K, but in a state of ten million that has an area where there are 200 deaths, though none in the reast of the state, that would only work out to 2 in 100K. The numbers are of course extremely artificial but doesn't it suggest there is something wrong with this way of computing a state's gun deaths?
That is, New York state has the very dense city of New York but the rest of the state is largely rural. It's possible the quieter larger rural areas outbalance the higher gun death rate in the cities to give a lower overall state statistic per 100K than the actual situation warrants. And the reverse in a low population state. Or something like that. New York City's population is almost 9 million, the whole state is almost 20 million so the part outside NYC is about 11 million. That part may have very few if any gun deaths per 100K so it can bring down the state's total by masking a very high rate in the city. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
I guess this is an example of critical thinking where you come up with objections to an opposing position. That is a very small start.
You need to go further and do the analysis before you can say that there is something wrong with the data. You might consider, for instance, that population density is already considered and should largely account for the effects of inner cities anyway. And you don’t even mention that. But let’s do a little analysis. The easy one to consider is New York. Let’s simplify by saying that half of the population is in the city and assume that there are no homicides in the rural areas - the cited homicide rate of 4 per 100k in the state would then come out as 8 per 100k in the city. That’s still notably less than the 14 per 100k quoted for Kentucky. If we use a population of 9 million for the city and 20 million for the State it still comes out as less than 9 per 100k. That really isn’t looking good for your argument. Arguing that Kentucky has a higher proportion of people living in inner cities than New York State seems odd - and that is what you were saying. That it would have to be higher than the proportion in New York City is even less plausible. Never mind the fact that Alaska is even worse than Kentucky.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1466 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Perhaps you are right. Or perhaps someone else will come along who explains it differently.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17825 Joined: Member Rating: 2.2
|
I’m quite definitely right that by the quoted figures the city of New York has a lower rate than the State of Kentucky, let alone Alaska. That’s simple mathematics.
Your problem is that you are no good at actual critical thinking. Which is why boasting that you are so much better than the rest of us was a very silly thing to do. If you were you would know to dig into the figures. Do they include suicides, for instance ? Where guns are available they are often used to commit suicide, and it’s not unlikely that poor rural communities might have a high suicide rate. I won’t say that is the answer without checking it, but it seems worth checking. That is what real critical thinking involves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Tangle writes:
I would agree that very little about the 2nd Amendment makes sense outside the US. I'm just saying that it seems to be consistent - if "militia" means everybody then everybody is entitled to military weapons. I wonder if they draw the line at howitzers? I guess 'makes sense' means something different in the US. Something like 'makes no sense'.An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I would agree that very little about the 2nd Amendment makes sense outside the US. I'm just saying that it seems to be consistent - if "militia" means everybody then everybody is entitled to military weapons. I wonder if they draw the line at howitzers? People have made the argument in favour of this very point - that since private individuals were permitted to carry cannons on their ships in the 18th Century - this was necessary and confirmed in the constitution Section I where it states that Congress has the power
quote: Letters of Marque granted private individuals the right to engage in Naval combat without being branded a pirate. That would necessitate cannons. People have argued that we should therefore allow for 'arms inflation' to at least the equivalent of ship cannons - which would suggest that howitzers are definitely included in that interpretation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
xongsmith Member Posts: 2587 From: massachusetts US Joined: Member Rating: 6.5 |
Ringo writes:
if "militia" means everybody then everybody is entitled to military weapons However, a well-regulated militia certainly does not mean to be including every militia. Therefore, not everybody is entitled to them.- xongsmith, 5.7d
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9504 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
Modulous writes: People have made the argument [...] People make all sorts of totally dumb arguments - and this is one - it obviously doesn't mean that it's a reasonable or winning argument or one that should be listened to.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024