Jump to content


And people wonder why the US is so divided


Recommended Posts

So you are telling me that Harvard Law publishes articles under its names from authors that are using faulty data sources or empirical analysis? Please point out what part of the study and data you disagree with.

 

I pointed out what was missing with Knapplc's graphs which, by the way, came from leftist VOX and includes citations from Mother Jones, another leftist outfit.

1. Correct. Fact checking for a Law Journal is to be sure that the citation exists - not whether it is correct. To do otherwise would require the law journal to act as a peer review committee, for which no law journal has the resources.

 

2. Where did I claim that disagreed with the "study" or the data? I simply corrected your claim that it was a Harvard study. I provided background on the authors to demonstrate that, first, they were not associated with Harvard, and second, that the conclusions are certainly subject to a degree of disbelief given the biases of the authors.

Link to comment

In reality the issue is the people not the guns. The way the media and many the music/film industry portray things as hip and cool combined with a lack of respect and responsibility towards guns is a major issue. Mix that with mental health issues and you have a major issue. Its our people not our guns that I blame.

perfect, although I would change "with a lack of respect and responsibility towards guns: to "a lack of respect and responsibility to/for anything"

Link to comment

If everyone's so fired up about gun control, how about starting in the places that need it first?

 

Camden, NJ, Bronx, Brooklyn, Paterson, New Orleans, Chicago for example. If you want gun control, just head over there, tell those fine folks that they can't have them anymore, see what that gets you...

 

Get the guns out of criminals hands, otherwise, you're merely wasting your time...

  • Fire 2
Link to comment

But, going off of the linked Vox article, we need to be more concerned with suicides i.e. mental illness than mass murders.

It's a matter of scale and a question of access. The suggestion there is that guns are a public health hazard. If guns are available, people will kill themselves using them. The argument made is that guns are by far the most effective, and that many (or most?) suicides come from transient desires rather than people with a long-term conviction to finish the job. The hypothesis is that if guns were less available, the simple effect is that some of the lives that are being taken would not be, and that many of those people would not try again.

 

Then again, maybe it's not worth it, and it's something we have to accept. There are, after all, many things which are legal but also pose risks to public health. Taking this view, guns ought to be kept legal, but called out for what they are: in many cases, a dangerous idea that should be avoided.

 

This is of course not what the gun lobby would like to hear, as that's their business being vilified. But never mind that. None of us here are concerned with the profits of gun companies, so that needn't affect our views.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

In reality the issue is the people not the guns. The way the media and many the music/film industry portray things as hip and cool combined with a lack of respect and responsibility towards guns is a major issue. Mix that with mental health issues and you have a major issue. Its our people not our guns that I blame.

 

Exactly, and that's what the gun rights proponents refuse to acknowledge. The past 25 to 30 years is when we've seen an increase in these mass shootings, and access to guns has not gotten easier during that time. What has changed during that time.

 

1. Violence depicted in movies, television, music, and video games has become more prevalent. You can't turn on CBS or ABC in the evening without seeing shows like CSI and Criminal Minds that involve many gun scenes. Perhaps we should ban all entertainment showing such violence.

 

2. Increase divorce rate and split family households. The breakdown in the American family, along with both parents working, have resulted in many kids being left alone to play more violent video games, get involved with bad crowds, etc...

 

3. Removal of religion/faith from schools and in peoples lives. We are a much more secular nation now than ever in our history, and I don't think its a coincidence that this type of violence has increased.

 

4. Income inequality has risen, and has gotten much worse under President Obama. The numbers there do not lie. More Americans are dependent on government and are not working, and we have the highest number of Americans out of the labor force since 1977. It would be interesting to see what the empirical research shows on the correlation between income inequality and violence in general (including assault and rape)

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

 

So you are telling me that Harvard Law publishes articles under its names from authors that are using faulty data sources or empirical analysis? Please point out what part of the study and data you disagree with.

 

I pointed out what was missing with Knapplc's graphs which, by the way, came from leftist VOX and includes citations from Mother Jones, another leftist outfit.

1. Correct. Fact checking for a Law Journal is to be sure that the citation exists - not whether it is correct. To do otherwise would require the law journal to act as a peer review committee, for which no law journal has the resources.

 

2. Where did I claim that disagreed with the "study" or the data? I simply corrected your claim that it was a Harvard study. I provided background on the authors to demonstrate that, first, they were not associated with Harvard, and second, that the conclusions are certainly subject to a degree of disbelief given the biases of the authors.

 

 

You implied that the article I referenced was not valid because you felt the authors were biased. I'm glad you are not refuting their conclusions based upon facts or findings but simply your own gut feel.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Income inequality is certainly a problem that we can expect produces poor outcomes on a number of fronts. Governments must do better here.

 

Are we back to the proposals of government censorship of media and government sponsorship of religion? If so, this never was about the bill of rights.

Link to comment

Every excuse under the sun, barring the one that's the actual problem.

 

It's not guns, it's mental health.

 

It's not guns, it's rape.

 

It's not guns, it's the people using the guns.

 

It's not guns, it's Obama.

 

 

Nope.

 

It's the guns. Really really.

 

If everyone's so fired up about gun control, how about starting in the places that need it first?

 

Camden, NJ, Bronx, Brooklyn, Paterson, New Orleans, Chicago for example. If you want gun control, just head over there, tell those fine folks that they can't have them anymore, see what that gets you...

 

Get the guns out of criminals hands, otherwise, you're merely wasting your time...

Link to comment

Income inequality is certainly a problem that we can expect produces poor outcomes on a number of fronts. Governments must do better here.

 

Are we back to the proposals of government censorship of media and government sponsorship of religion? If so, this never was about the bill of rights.

Are you implying that this isn't happening and hasn't been happening for a long time now?

Link to comment

 

 

So you are telling me that Harvard Law publishes articles under its names from authors that are using faulty data sources or empirical analysis? Please point out what part of the study and data you disagree with.

 

I pointed out what was missing with Knapplc's graphs which, by the way, came from leftist VOX and includes citations from Mother Jones, another leftist outfit.

1. Correct. Fact checking for a Law Journal is to be sure that the citation exists - not whether it is correct. To do otherwise would require the law journal to act as a peer review committee, for which no law journal has the resources.

 

2. Where did I claim that disagreed with the "study" or the data? I simply corrected your claim that it was a Harvard study. I provided background on the authors to demonstrate that, first, they were not associated with Harvard, and second, that the conclusions are certainly subject to a degree of disbelief given the biases of the authors.

 

You implied that the article I referenced was not valid because you felt the authors were biased. I'm glad you are not refuting their conclusions based upon facts or findings but simply your own gut feel.

 

1. Wrong. I implied nothing - I provided facts concerning the background of the authors for the reasons I stated. The second reason was to demonstrate their conclusion were subject to a degree of disbelief, which was further proof that it does not meet the definition of a "study", not concerning the validity of their opinions. If you drew an inference other than that, that's your right. But it is YOUR inference; it was not my implication.

 

2. Wrong again. I did not refute their conclusions (note that they cited others for facts; they did nothing more than draw conclusions from the facts provided by others - in short, those were not their facts, nor their "findings"; they were simply conclusions), either explicitly or impliedly.

  • Fire 1
Link to comment

Knapp,

 

I didn't know that guns are decepticons. Must be that cars are similarly affected.

 

How stupid is that. I just thought it was a dumb movie.

 

I really like some of the studies that use "crowd sourcing"; I know it must be scientific.

Link to comment

Exactly what kind of 'actual gun control' are your proposing. Spell it out. The who, what, how and where and when of it all?

 

 

 

 

We could start with.....sh#t I don't know, something. Any sane and rational person agrees that something needs to be done - but half of our country is ferociously fighting against anything. At least those overzealous for gun reform are overzealous on the side of trying to change the really awful realities facing our country.

 

 

"The real issue isn't guns, it's people."

 

Wrong. The issue is nuanced, complicated, complex, and contributed towards by tons of factors. The issue is people. The issue is guns. The issue is lobbyists who don't give a sh#t about college kids getting massacred or killing themselves. The issue is 100 other things.

 

The entire point of those who have gotten to the place where they think something has to be done is that guns are a significant factor among many. Guns are a tool.

 

 

 

 

 

If I want to build a deck, I'll be able to build it a lot easier if I have a hammer nearby. If I want to clean a car, I'll be much more likely to do it if I have easy access to a hose. If I want to demo a house, I might become unmotivated and give up on the idea if I don't immediately have and have to put forth a lot of effort to acquire the necessary tools to do it.

 

If I want to kill myself, or someone else, the more difficult it is for me to do so the better. There is no coherent way of debating this. If a gun costs 5x as much, is 5x harder to acquire, is 5x more rare, or 5x whatever, then deaths and suicides go down because thousands of people either A) think better of their idea or lose motivation in the longer, more drawn out process that it takes to acquire the gun, B) don't have the means or the knowledge to obtain one, or C) get caught and flagged by the system while they're trying.

  • Fire 2
Link to comment
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...