Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 96 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2018 4:50 AM
276 online now:
frako, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (3 members, 273 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,369 Year: 5,192/29,783 Month: 1,124/1,467 Week: 10/311 Day: 10/51 Hour: 5/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Author Topic:   Gun Control III
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10471
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 136 of 200 (830157)
03-22-2018 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by Percy
03-22-2018 8:46 AM


Re: Scientific American on Guns
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!Ē

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Percy, posted 03-22-2018 8:46 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 137 of 200 (830170)
03-23-2018 5:31 PM


Baby Steps on Gun Control Research
The instructions accompanying the omnibus spending bill that Trump signed today includes this sentence:

quote:
While appropriations language prohibits the CDC and other agencies from using appropriated funding to advocate or promote gun control, the Secretary of Health and Human Services has stated the CDC has the authority to conduct research on the causes of gun violence.

No funding was budgeted, but at least it's progress.

Source: Is the return of government gun research near?

--Percy


    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16978
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 138 of 200 (830330)
03-27-2018 8:45 AM


Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
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:

CountryGun Deaths per 100,000Vehicular Deaths per 100,000
Mexico11.2312.3
United States10.4510.6
South Africa8.325.1
Finland3.254.8
Switzerland3.013.3
France2.835.1
Israel2.093.6
Canada2.056.0
Turkey1.958.9
Norway1.753.8
Portugal1.587.8
Greece1.529.1
Sweden1.472.8
Italy1.316.1
Denmark1.283.5
Belgium1.246.7
Australia1.045.4
Germany1.014.3
Ireland0.84.1
Spain0.623.7
Netherlands0.583.4
United Kingdom0.232.9
Japan0.064.7

We not only suck at gun safety, but even vehicular safety.

--Percy

Edited by Percy, : Typo.


Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 03-27-2018 1:22 PM Percy has acknowledged this reply
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 03-27-2018 9:09 PM Percy has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14505
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 139 of 200 (830347)
03-27-2018 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
03-27-2018 8:45 AM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Percy writes:

"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.


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.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 03-27-2018 8:45 AM Percy has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2018 5:12 PM ringo has responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5572
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 140 of 200 (830359)
03-27-2018 5:12 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by ringo
03-27-2018 1:22 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by ringo, posted 03-27-2018 1:22 PM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by ringo, posted 03-28-2018 3:14 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 141 of 200 (830371)
03-27-2018 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Percy
03-27-2018 8:45 AM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 03-27-2018 8:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2018 10:21 PM Faith has responded
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 03-29-2018 3:48 PM Faith has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7660
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


(1)
Message 142 of 200 (830372)
03-27-2018 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by Faith
03-27-2018 9:09 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 03-27-2018 9:09 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 1:16 AM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 143 of 200 (830373)
03-28-2018 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Modulous
03-27-2018 10:21 PM


Computing gun deaths per 100K per state
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Modulous, posted 03-27-2018 10:21 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2018 3:31 AM Faith has responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13765
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 144 of 200 (830377)
03-28-2018 3:31 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by Faith
03-28-2018 1:16 AM


Re: Computing gun deaths per 100K per state
I guess this is an example of ďcritical thinkingĒ 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 ďsomething wrongĒ 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 donít even mention that.

But letís do a little analysis. The easy one to consider is New York. Letís 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. Thatís 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 isnít 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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 1:16 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 8:53 AM PaulK has responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27616
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 145 of 200 (830383)
03-28-2018 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by PaulK
03-28-2018 3:31 AM


Re: Computing gun deaths per 100K per state
Perhaps you are right. Or perhaps someone else will come along who explains it differently.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2018 3:31 AM PaulK has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by PaulK, posted 03-28-2018 9:31 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
PaulK
Member
Posts: 13765
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 146 of 200 (830385)
03-28-2018 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by Faith
03-28-2018 8:53 AM


Re: Computing gun deaths per 100K per state
Iím 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. Thatís 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 itís not unlikely that poor rural communities might have a high suicide rate. I wonít say that is the answer without checking it, but it seems worth checking. That is what real critical thinking involves.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Faith, posted 03-28-2018 8:53 AM Faith has not yet responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14505
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 147 of 200 (830407)
03-28-2018 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 140 by Tangle
03-27-2018 5:12 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
Tangle writes:

I guess 'makes sense' means something different in the US. Something like 'makes no sense'.


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?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Tangle, posted 03-27-2018 5:12 PM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2018 5:23 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply
 Message 149 by xongsmith, posted 03-28-2018 5:51 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7660
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 148 of 200 (830418)
03-28-2018 5:23 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by ringo
03-28-2018 3:14 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
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:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by ringo, posted 03-28-2018 3:14 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Tangle, posted 03-28-2018 6:21 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1839
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009


Message 149 of 200 (830419)
03-28-2018 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by ringo
03-28-2018 3:14 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by ringo, posted 03-28-2018 3:14 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5572
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 150 of 200 (830420)
03-28-2018 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Modulous
03-28-2018 5:23 PM


Re: Repeal the 2nd Amendment? Seriously?
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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Modulous, posted 03-28-2018 5:23 PM Modulous has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by ringo, posted 03-29-2018 11:47 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018