• Mass Shooting Season 2014 still going strong as four+ are wounded at Seattle Pacific University
    474 replies, posted
[QUOTE=NoDachi;45021993]I don't think the ACRU is a credible source oops the website is just choked full of anti-abortion, fundamental christian and gender bullshit. [editline]7th June 2014[/editline] sorry for believing in empirical evidence and i'm also sorry you can't provide anything for your wild claims figures[/QUOTE] a cursory skim over this demonstrates some empirical evidence but i'm gonna have to read the whole thing, will brb in like 2 days i'm not seeing any regression analysis or statistical significance so far though sooooooooooo it kinda reeks of being written by a criminologist
[QUOTE=BFG9000;45021981]Because not everything is a matter of numbers and trends and different sized bars and cluttered scatter plots, believe it or not[/QUOTE] "Believe me, despite my lacking actual evidence."
which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it really doesn't amount to anything more than pointing at crime statistics without any sort of delving deeper into them or trying to find out the "why" of the story. kinda blown away that they wrote a 50~ page report without doing any regression analysis.
[QUOTE=bdd458;45021746]Or you know, a stigma relating to mental health issues, sometimes lax police work, high disparity in wealth, high 'extreme' poverty rates, and a quickly shrinking middle class. but right, the issue has to be the guns.[/QUOTE] So you agree that those things play a part, but access to weapons does not? Or does it have to be black and white, one or the other?
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;45022357]which isn't necessarily a bad thing but it really doesn't amount to anything more than pointing at crime statistics without any sort of delving deeper into them or trying to find out the "why" of the story. kinda blown away that they wrote a 50~ page report without doing any regression analysis.[/QUOTE] what is a regression analysis
[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;45022362]So you agree that those things play a part, but access to weapons does not? Or does it have to be black and white, one or the other?[/QUOTE] But if you take guns away, [I]those other problems would still exist[/I]. If you got rid of those other problems, gun violence would not be at nearly the same level, or even exist at all. [editline]7th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Kommodore;45022407]what is a regression analysis[/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis[/url]
in lay terms
[QUOTE=Kommodore;45022407]what is a regression analysis[/QUOTE] it associates variables in a causal way, by holding all other variables constant. allows you to see the individual effect that a specific variable has on your dependent variable. it's sort of... standard procedure for comparative politics. a study with focus on quantitative methods without any sort of regression analysis will usually be turned away at the review phase for lacking it. i'm actually surprised that this got published in the Harvard PP journal without it given that it seems to place all of its quantitative evidence as a focus. that said there's only like 3 tables in the entire thing so i'm guessing they took a more qualitative approach, which is fine and interesting, but really is less impactful directly for the debate. [editline]7th June 2014[/editline] a basic way of looking at regression: i want to see the effect of education on levels of health, and see if they have any significant impact. with regression analysis, i can control other variables that will traditionally impact health very significantly - probably more significantly than just what i'm looking at - such as GDP. regression gives me the ability to effectively ignore GDP entirely and examine the relationship between education and health directly. the more variables you control for, the better (most of the time).
[QUOTE=BrickInHead;45022448]it associates variables in a causal way, by holding all other variables constant. allows you to see the individual effect that a specific variable has on your dependent variable.[/QUOTE] the wiki was basically in vernacular, thanks
[QUOTE=Kommodore;45022484]this was all it took, thanks, the wiki was basically in vernacular[/QUOTE] idk I'm completely shit at math (and anything relating to it really, except physics <3) and I thought the wikipedia article was pretty easy to follow and understand.
congratulations
[QUOTE=Explosions;45011405]One line[/QUOTE] Yes, but the point was that your constitution still guarantees every citizen the right to arms.. in a nation of 300 million people. Guns being written "all over" your constitution was just a funny way of saying that. It is in your constitution, made up by those who you all proudly know as the founding fathers back in the 1800's. Not to mention all the guns that have been spread far and wide across the U.S. since then. So yeah.. talk about mission impossible?
If it wasn't so easy for anyone to get a hold of a firearm in the US, this kinda shit wouldn't happen so often. To me personally, this right to bear arms is unnecessary and just plain dangerous but it's just so strongly embedded in American culture that it's pretty much impossible to get it out of the constitution. Proper mental health care is the next best thing I gues...
[QUOTE=bdd458;45022411]But if you take guns away, [I]those other problems would still exist[/I]. If you got rid of those other problems, gun violence would not be at nearly the same level, or even exist at all. [editline]7th June 2014[/editline] [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regression_analysis[/URL][/QUOTE] They should have fucking started with hand guns because of the easy concealment. (Even being somewhat pro gun ownership, I gotta agree here.) I think less hand guns in generally would by itself be a great start in reducing the violence level.
[QUOTE=Larry_G;45024458]If it wasn't so easy for anyone to get a hold of a firearm in the US, this kinda shit wouldn't happen so often. To me personally, this right to bear arms is unnecessary and just plain dangerous but it's just so strongly embedded in American culture that it's pretty much impossible to get it out of the constitution. Proper mental health care is the next best thing I gues...[/QUOTE] Changes don't happen overnight. It isn't impossible, you just have to do it slowly and put effort into it. Which is what no one wants to do. Can't fix a problem if there is no one to fix it. In a perfect world US would focus on both reducing gun culture and improving healthcare.
It's not impossibility that's the problem, the problem is it just shouldn't happen (I'm guessing you mean the complete removal of guns? Other solutions like just better background checks are completely possible).
[QUOTE=Thlis;45011460]Yeah its not like laws should change over time. [sp]Gay Marriage[/sp] [sp]Racial Segregation[/sp] [sp]Slavery[/sp][/QUOTE] Laws created by asshats that were morally wrong from day 1 != A right given by the country's founders aimed at allowing the citizens to protect themselves.
[QUOTE=ExplosiveCheese;45024585]They should have fucking started with hand guns because of the easy concealment. (Even being somewhat pro gun ownership, I gotta agree here.) I think less hand guns in generally would by itself be a great start in reducing the violence level.[/QUOTE] Oh trust me, I feel there should be tighter regulation on Handguns, as most murders are committed with them. Not 'assault weapons'. Not what the feel good legislation attacks. and by tighter regulation, I mean things like mental health checks on background checks, and stuff of that nature.
[QUOTE=bdd458;45022411]But if you take guns away, [I]those other problems would still exist[/I]. If you got rid of those other problems, gun violence would not be at nearly the same level, or even exist at all.[/QUOTE] theres really no way of knowing that at this point
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45026414]theres really no way of knowing that at this point[/QUOTE] beeesiiiiides that we tried to take booze away and crime skyrocketed? Almost the same thing
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45027874]And you have no evidence that trying to get rid of firearms in the US will have any effect. So your argument is pretty moot. Besides, even if addressing the other issues doesn't work, we'd still be a fuck-ton better off, simply because we took care of a ton of issues.[/QUOTE] just like he has no evidence that taking care of the other issues will solve anything [QUOTE=ZakkShock;45027812]beeesiiiiides that we tried to take booze away and crime skyrocketed? Almost the same thing[/QUOTE] not a good comparison. there's plenty of countries with very little gun crime that still have drug problems [editline]7th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=TheMrFailz;45025343]Laws created by asshats that were morally wrong from day 1 != A right given by the country's founders aimed at allowing the citizens to protect themselves.[/QUOTE] how is owning a gun a right
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028007]The US constitution explicitly stated this in the 2nd amendment. It's a universal right of american citizens who are not felons to own weaponry. Furthermore the supreme court has upheld the citizens right to keep and bear arms.[/QUOTE] i'm not asking "where does it say that it is a right", i'm asking how is it a right
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45027978]just like he has no evidence that taking care of the other issues will solve anything[/QUOTE] most scholars agree that poverty exacerbates crime: [url]http://cjr.sagepub.com/content/18/2/182.short[/url] [QUOTE]In the late 1970s and early 1980s, several important reviews of the literature failed to establish a clear consensus on the relationship between economic conditions and violent crime. The research presented here applies the procedures of meta-analysis to 34 aggregate data studies reporting on violent crime, poverty, and income inequality. These studies reported a total of 76 zero-order correlation coefficients for all measures of violent crime with either poverty or income inequality. Of the 76 coefficients, all but 2, or 97 percent, were positive. Of the positive coefficients, nearly 80 percent were of at least moderate strength (>.25). It is concluded that poverty and income inequality are each associated with violent crime. The analysis, however, shows considerable variation in the estimated size of the relationships and suggests that homicide and assault may be more closely associated with poverty or income inequality than are rape and robbery.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028116]Because it's in the constitution, and hasn't been amended out of said constitution. The same reason Americans have freedom of speech and the press is free to print criticisms of the government, because our constitution allows for it.[/QUOTE] He's asking how owning guns is a human right, not where it can be found as a constitutional right. How dense are you to not realise that? Fuck your constitution anyways. The bill of rights is at least 200 years old and when the founding fathers envisioned for people to bear arms for the defence against tyrants, I'm pretty sure they would have never imagined the issue would get so out of hand that students would die every week from school shootings. If the founding fathers were alive today they certainly wouldn't have passed the second amendment.
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028300]Boo hoo, the American constitution is what grants rights to Americans, god forbid we follow it. "fuck your constitution": watch yourself, don't want to cut yourself on that edge. And for the record, school shootings don't occur every week. But keep buying into the media hype. I'm sure you think that mass shootings are a daily occurance too.[/QUOTE] So you recognise that education isn't a right, because your holy constitution doesn't state that every child should have to go to school? Okay, how about school shootings happen every two weeks?
[QUOTE=Antdawg;45028287]He's asking how owning guns is a human right, not where it can be found as a constitutional right. How dense are you to not realise that?[/QUOTE] It's not a human right. It's pretty easy to lose, in fact- just be a convicted felon or former mental institution patient and then good luck getting a gun. [QUOTE=Antdawg;45028287]Fuck your constitution anyways. The bill of rights is at least 200 years old and when the founding fathers envisioned for people to bear arms for the defence against tyrants, I'm pretty sure they would have never imagined the issue would get so out of hand that students would die every week from school shootings. If the founding fathers were alive today they certainly wouldn't have passed the second amendment.[/QUOTE] You could use the exact same argument to criticize the 1st Amendment on the basis that the founding fathers couldn't have foreseen television, radio, or the Internet. No shit, people in the 18th century couldn't foresee changes in technology, but what difference does it make what they would think transplanted into the 21st century? The best you can do is try to determine what the basic purpose of the amendment is, and scholars generally agree that the primary purpose of the 2nd was to arm the populace as a security measure against overreaching government.
Today this is fox news with special guest Lieberman. "It's dem vidya games ! DEM VIDYA GAMES !!!!"
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028300]Boo hoo, the American constitution is what grants rights to Americans, god forbid we follow it. "fuck your constitution": watch yourself, don't want to cut yourself on that edge.[/QUOTE] that's not the point you doofus. a constitutional right is not the same thing as a human right
[QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028389]And I never said it was.[/QUOTE] except you kinda did [QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45028017]i'm asking how is it a right[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=ilikecorn;45028116]Because it's in the constitution[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Zukriuchen;45028408]except you kinda did[/QUOTE] But he was right. It's a constitutional RIGHT. You never asked if it was a human right, just if it was a right, and a constitutional right is a right.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.