I'm not sure. Just that those rates and numbers are wildly out of step with the demographic representation. This means that it is part of the discussion.
Printable View
I'm not sure. Just that those rates and numbers are wildly out of step with the demographic representation. This means that it is part of the discussion.
Gun violence statistics in America are disproportionately concentrated among one minority racial/ethnic group. Thus, gun control efforts that impact all Americans would be punitive for the majority. Essentially, such statistics should not be used to underpin gun control measures, as it would be both misguided and unfair to take away gun freedoms from whites, asians, and hispanics because blacks kill other blacks at an unusually high rate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It is the same with a lot of "America's" social problems. They are actually black America's social problems, but we are all asked to pay for them.
Big deal, every denomination has individuals who want to kill and with america's huge prevelance of guns you make it very easy to do so, who's group contains the biggest amount is utterly irrelevant.
From what has been said in this thread; the main reason I hear that you need them (for self and home defense) doesnt seem to have much to do with guns being useful but that they somewhat make up the inadequacies of local law enforcement. Idealy you should not need them and you should be trying to work to that ideal instead of pinning blame on racial groups.
It is not irrelevant to finding a solution to gun violence. If statistics are going to be used to push gun control as they are currently, those using them should be frank about what those statistics actually say. As has already been shown in this thread, gun violence has little correlation to gun ownership rates or availability. Instead, it is most correlated to racial and/or socioeconomic groups. A true effort to reduce gun violence would be aimed at altering the conditions that cause inner city blacks to kill one another. Blanket bans that impact millions of people in communities that do not have issues with gun violence would be a ham-handed, ideological band-aid to a much deeper rooted social problem that is politically incorrect to address.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. The paramilitary-like police in post 9/11 America are too effective and too powerful, but you will never change that fundamental reality - not even in Britain.Quote:
From what has been said in this thread; the main reason I hear that you need them (for self and home defense) doesnt seem to have much to do with guns being useful but that they somewhat make up the inadequacies of local law enforcement. Idealy you should not need them and you should be trying to work to that ideal instead of pinning blame.
Yes, it does, she's really crazy and indoctrinated. At least she admits it took her 45 seconds or so to realize that she might want to shoot back, 45 seconds in which a bullet proof vest offers much better protection than a gun since it covers more of your body than a gun in your pocket does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dol Guldur
She also forgets to mention that the perp came from an area with high atmospheric lead levels.
The New-York sniper was white, wasn't he?Quote:
Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger
This latest guy was white?
Sure - poor Blacks in Urban areas shoot each other more often than poor whites in rural areas, the same is true here, but the really heinous crimes that really justify restrictions aren't so demographically slanted.
You want to know why poor blacks in urban areas shoot each other more often?
Population density.
Begging the question.Quote:
but the really heinous crimes that really justify restrictions
http://www.cep.ucsb.edu/McDermott/pa...arrior2009.pdfQuote:
You want to know why poor blacks in urban areas shoot each other more often?
Population density.
:wink:
Hahaha. Right, smart people have postulated something, it must be true. I have to admit, it sounded pretty flimsy on NPR. They are taking a number of things for granted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
? I haven't found any NPR articles on the subject. Anyway...
http://asr.sagepub.com/content/76/6/883.abstract
What do you find problematic?Quote:
lthough gene by environment studies are typically based on the assumption that some individuals possess genetic variants that enhance their vulnerability to environmental adversity, the differential susceptibility perspective posits that these individuals are simply more susceptible to environmental influence than others. An important implication of this perspective is that individuals most vulnerable to adverse social environments are the same ones who reap the most benefit from environmental support. Using longitudinal data from a sample of several hundred African Americans, we found that relatively common variants of the dopamine receptor gene and the serotonin transporter gene interact with social conditions to predict aggression in a manner consonant with the differential susceptibility perspective. When social conditions were adverse, individuals with these genetic variants manifested more aggression than other genotypes, whereas when the environment was favorable they demonstrated less aggression than other genotypes. Furthermore, we found that these genetic variants interact with environmental conditions to foster schemas and emotions consistent with the differential susceptibility perspective and that a latent construct formed by these schemas and emotions mediates the gene by environment interaction on aggression.
http://www.wnyc.org/shows/lopate/201...ead-and-crime/
Things like "we found higher concentrations of atmospheric lead in urban areas". This stands to reason as there has always been a higher density of cars in those areas. "The rates of violence for these areas was exceptionally high". Yes, it is an urban area with shoddy school systems, disconnected families which mentors criminal activity.
I'm all about new ideas. I'm willing to listen to them, but that guy - Leonard Lopate - asked no critical questions and simply said "I'm sold" at the end. Most of what was said was correlation. The guy pushing the study says that it went beyond correlation. I'm willing to listen to more of what he has to say, but I most certainly don't buy the argument.
Isn't that a response to Husar, then?
Here is a link to an Harvard Law and Policy Review article from 2010 detailing the expectations of the (then upcoming) McDonald v Chicago decision. I think that HLPR staff deftly discuss potential policy responses by the Gun Control lobby in the aftermath of DC v Heller. This is a well written and prescient article, well worth the read.
Here is an excerpt from the Conclusion:
Quote:
I have concentrated here on particular questions and acts of legislation that are likely to be impacted by Heller and McDonald, and I have suggested places where the common use standard generates analytical puzzles or low predictability. These issues will consume time and energy but will be peripheral in terms of violence policy consequences. The reason is that gun prohibition is basically an all-or-nothing proposition. It rests on the logic that no guns equals no gun crime. No one expects the inventory to go to zero, but results depend on reductions that get relatively close to it. So supply-side regulations only make sense if we think that eventually they will make guns or the elusive subcategory “crime guns” relatively scarce. Heller makes that constitutionally impermissible. Most “crime guns” are ordinary handguns. Ordinary handguns kept for self-defense are explicitly protected under Heller.[46]
Watch if you can bear to.
http://youtu.be/p1Ddb3oa5CE
So, Piers Morgan, after looking like an unhinged loon shouting down gun rights advocates who he invited on to debate, decided to make himself look better by inviting an actual unhinged loon on his show.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Can we cancel his show now?
That interview was dumb. Jones is a nut. Legitimate points in rapid fire, mixed in with conspiracy theories isn't helping the cause.
I do like it that he made one of the producers cry though. what a fruitcake.
With any luck he will deport himself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xiahou
There has been another school shooting, fortunately, a teacher was able to talk down the student. Unfortunately, some one did get hurt.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-20975608
Uh oh, he had a shotgun with enough ammo to shoot many people. Time to ban shotguns.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiaexz
Kudos to the teacher and having the guts and ability to talk the student out of this.
Don't be ridiculous! The fact that shotguns have limited use in rural areas and controlled environments means we should let everyone carry them around all of the time because having the ability to kill someone makes up for both cretinism and having a microphallus.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
~:smoking:
And you always get the front passenger seat!