|
Author
|
Topic: Gun Control
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
Message 181 of 310 (669378)
07-29-2012 3:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 180 by Modulous
07-29-2012 2:45 PM
|
|
high density and noise factors
Hi Modulus
... as well as some pretty entrenched and lethally violent gang cultures. ... These also involve high density populations with squalid environments ... not conducive to peaceful living. Gangs are a way of coping with population density, forming enclaves within populations, and keeping interactions internal to the gangs and confrontational with all outsiders. In the 70's I was involved in a study of noise pollution and we found a correlation between levels of background noise and violence (includes rapes and beatings as well as murders), but that the correlation was different for Canada and the US, so obviously there is one or more other factors, but they were strong linear correlations. Noise irritates people and this could account for the correlation. Enjoy.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 180 by Modulous, posted 07-29-2012 2:45 PM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
My point was simply that Hitler, in particular, constitutes a counterexample to rather than an example of any claims about a connection between guns and liberty. What Hitler did is a perfect example of not only why people need to keep their guns, but why people need to learn why they have them.
General Gandhi, leader of the famed Indian Revolutionary Army that defeated the British redcoats at the Battle of Delhi. Or something like that. And in a perfect world my ass would wipe itself.
Love your enemies!
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 188 by Dr Adequate, posted 07-29-2012 10:30 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9601 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 5.8
|
Re: Inclusive
crashfrog writes: Then I would suggest that you look further, because this is a chart of gun homicides per 100,000 people - not all homicides per 100,000 people. Sure, that's what I said and what the statistics say - the more people that have guns, the more people are killed by guns; in what seems like a staright line relationship (with the USA as an extreme outlier.) Would the same number of people be killed by clubs and knives if they didn't have guns? I think that's a difficult argument to make but why not have a go?
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2012 2:12 PM | | crashfrog has not replied |
|
Jon
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 184 of 310 (669401)
07-29-2012 7:03 PM
|
Reply to: Message 142 by Modulous
07-28-2012 12:00 PM
|
|
Re: Murder is Murder
Unless of course, someone were to make the claim that gun restrictions don't prevent gun crime as criminals will still have guns - or similar claims. Then its quite pertinent to gun control discussion. No. It was never pertinent to the discussion, no more than flying elephants are pertinent to the discussion just because I brought them up.
Love your enemies!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 142 by Modulous, posted 07-28-2012 12:00 PM | | Modulous has replied |
|
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 874 days) Posts: 921 Joined: 12-26-2011
|
|
|
Message 185 of 310 (669419)
07-29-2012 9:21 PM
|
Reply to: Message 172 by RAZD
07-29-2012 6:29 AM
|
|
Re: armed overthrow not the only option
especially now in the conservative owned informercial news age. You can't be serious. That is a ridiculous notion in the extreme. Do you live in a alternative universe or something?
It's even funnier that you buy the faux news spin on it rather than actually look at the live video feeds from the sites. Don't you mean selectively cherry picked video feeds that are staged by left wing media outlets? It's even funnier that you buy into ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC,PBS, Daily Kos, Rachel MadKow, Democrat underground, Huffington Post's spin on it rather than getting a balanced, well represented picture that you could find on conservative media outlets. Edited by Voltaire30, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 172 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2012 6:29 AM | | RAZD has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 186 by Panda, posted 07-29-2012 9:28 PM | | foreveryoung has replied | | | Message 193 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2012 7:22 AM | | foreveryoung has not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 4005 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: armed overthrow not the only option
Voltaire30 writes: especially now in the conservative owned informercial news age. You can't be serious. That is a ridiculous notion in the extreme. Do you live in a alternative universe or something?
RAZD posted ~900 words in reply to you and this is all you chose to comment on? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
"There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
foreveryoung
Member (Idle past 874 days) Posts: 921 Joined: 12-26-2011
|
|
|
Message 187 of 310 (669421)
07-29-2012 9:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 186 by Panda
07-29-2012 9:28 PM
|
|
Re: armed overthrow not the only option
The minority here gets piled on. He isn't the only one to respond to when you are a conservative that draws liberals like maggots to rotting flesh. You have to pick and choose what you respond to or you will spend all of your time here and end up in an insane asylum.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 186 by Panda, posted 07-29-2012 9:28 PM | | Panda has not replied |
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 188 of 310 (669424)
07-29-2012 10:30 PM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by Jon
07-29-2012 6:55 PM
|
|
What Hitler did is a perfect example of not only why people need to keep their guns, but why people need to learn why they have them. So ... they would have shot Hitler, if only it had occurred to them? "Hans?" "Ja, Fritz?" "You know zat Hitler chap?" "Ja, siche." "Vell, I vas thinking, wouldn't it be great if he vas dead rather than alive?" "Ja, zat would be jolly nice. But how can von turn alive people into dead people?" "Ja, zat's ze puzzle. If only zer was some sort of ... device ... for killink people. Vat a vonderful vorld zat vould be." "A device for killink people! Absurd." "Ja, but a man can dream." "Ach, mein Gott, you and your dreams. You alvays vere ze impractical type. Now get your rifle and let's go duck-hunting." "Vait, zat gives me an ide --- no, no, it's gone."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by Jon, posted 07-29-2012 6:55 PM | | Jon has seen this message but not replied |
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1759 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
General Gandhi, leader of the famed Indian Revolutionary Army that defeated the British redcoats at the Battle of Delhi. Or something like that. I know the popular history has Gandhi as this great peaceful leader, and this is somewhat off-topic, but describing the fight for Indian independence as "non-violent" as a result makes about as much sense as calling the American Revolution "non-violent" because all Thomas Paine did was write pamphlets. Hundreds of people died during the fight for Indian independence as a result of bombings of British government targets, a campaign of assassinations, and foreign arms importation. All of which made the continued occupation of India an increasingly unpopular idea. The notion that India won its independence because of a few quips from a thin gay guy in a robe is popular, but elides the truth - freeing your country is a struggle, and there's no way to just talk your way through it. Popular force of arms is inevitably a part of it.
|
Dr Adequate
Member Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 190 of 310 (669426)
07-29-2012 10:35 PM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
07-29-2012 10:31 PM
|
|
I know the popular history has Gandhi as this great peaceful leader ... Well yes. If you know better, please tell me whom he shot.
... and this is somewhat off-topic, but describing the fight for Indian independence as "non-violent" as a result makes about as much sense as calling the American Revolution "non-violent" because all Thomas Paine did was write pamphlets. However, what made the difference was in fact non-violent protest. If the Indians had had to win a military victory to dislodge the British, then the British would still be there, 'cos they didn't. This makes it different from the War of Independence.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2012 10:31 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2012 7:53 AM | | Dr Adequate has replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9601 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 5.8
|
|
|
Message 191 of 310 (669438)
07-30-2012 4:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 179 by RAZD
07-29-2012 2:12 PM
|
|
Re: Inclusive
Another graph from one of DA's posted articles shows that the USA is a much more violent society than other developed countries. The good news is that it is becoming much less so.
Healy writes, The most striking features of the data are (1) how much more violent the U.S. is than other OECD countries (except possibly Estonia and Mexico, not shown here), and (2) the degree of changeand recently, declinethere has been in the U.S. time series considered by itself.
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 179 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2012 2:12 PM | | RAZD has seen this message but not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 07-30-2012 7:59 AM | | Tangle has seen this message but not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9601 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 5.8
|
Re: Inclusive
crashfrog writes: Then I would suggest that you look further, because this is a chart of gun homicides per 100,000 people - not all homicides per 100,000 people. So I've now looked further and found that the evidence supports the assertion that more guns cause more murders
1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review). Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide. Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40. 2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide. We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded. Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88. 3. Across states, more guns = more homicide Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997). After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide. Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993. 4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2) Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide. Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.
Page not found | Research | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health
Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by crashfrog, posted 07-29-2012 2:12 PM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1697 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
liberal media is a myth
Hi Voltaire30 Thanks for proving to me once again that if you give someone something rather innocuous to react to that they will choose to focus entirely on that rather than the substantive arguments presented in the rest of the post. It gives you an out to vent emotion without dealing with the cognitive dissonance in the reading the post (avoidance behavior to reduce dissonance). For instance can you answer this question at the end of the post:
... was not a repressive police state like the former soviet union. BTW -- can you tell me how the "former soviet union" was transformed into the current political states and whether that involve an armed citizenry? Was it by war? Or did it occur peacefully, non-violently ... It should be an easy question to answer as it is fairly recent history that can be found on the web. Of course it appears to completely gut your argument ... which is likely why you are avoiding it (cognitive dissonance at work).
... rather than getting a balanced, well represented picture that you could find on conservative media outlets. Which, curiously, by your own description is NOT balanced but conservatively biased. Are you aware that people who watch Faux Noise are WORSE informed about events than people that do not watch ANY news? CNN is a close second in this regard. Facts and evidence are not something to be balanced by opinions, lies and misrepresentations, and when one side of an argument is based on facts and evidence and the other is only based on opinion then proper news reporting should concern the facts and evidence and ignore the opinion -- that's fair.
... ABC,NBC,CBS,CNN,MSNBC, ... Owned and operated by conservatives ... with "pretty" reporters concerned more about image\appearance than covering news, reading scripts off teleprompters prepared in the back rooms, and horridly ignorant of most basic science and a lot of American and world history ...
... It's even funnier that you buy into ... Except that I don't "buy into" any news -- it's all infomercials these days dependent more on ratings than reality. I go to original sources where possible, and international news when available. I'm old enough to know what real reporting was like. It is sadly missed. Enjoy. ps - see Liberal Media Conspiracy?, The "Liberal" Media and Your "liberal" media to discuss the "liberal media" myth Edited by RAZD, : question Edited by RAZD, : ps
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1759 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
However, what made the difference was in fact non-violent protest. They killed hundreds with a campaign of explosives terrorism. How is that "non-violent"?
|
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1759 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: 03-20-2003
|
|
|
Message 195 of 310 (669459)
07-30-2012 7:58 AM
|
Reply to: Message 192 by Tangle
07-30-2012 4:27 AM
|
|
Re: Inclusive
This, again, looks like firearm homicides (they keep saying "particularly firearm homicides".) And there's no putative mechanism by which availability of guns makes people want to kill each other. Isn't it just as reasonable to suggest that when people live somewhere with a lot of homicides, they get firearms for personal protection? And then when they decide to murder someone in turn, they use their firearms to do it? I can't really consider this evidence, I guess, since I can't review any of the referenced literature.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 192 by Tangle, posted 07-30-2012 4:27 AM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 197 by Tangle, posted 07-30-2012 8:22 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2
