|
Amused to Death posted:Well, for starters, Friedman supported a guaranteed income through a negative income tax I believe. It's almost like, those who really love the market also know it doesn't really work well when 1/2 the people in the market have poo poo all for buying power and leverage. Using this hard
|
#
?
May 30, 2013 23:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
SalTheBard posted:http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/02/robert-farago/nra-gun-ownership-soars-murder-rate-plummets/ The simplest answer is just "Correlation does not imply causation." Thousands of other factors could have caused a decreasing homicide rate. In fact, widespread gun ownership could actually be increasing the homicide rate, but other factors could be decreasing it even faster. For example, lead poisoning could be a cause of violent crime in the next generation, and as tighter pollution standards and regulations have come into effect it may lead to a drastic drop in violent crime decades down the road. This has nothing to do with guns at all, and could have such a huge effect that gun ownership changing it, whether up or down, could be a small enough effect that the overall trend would still be a downwards one. Similarly, you could make cases for poverty reduction, increased tolerance, higher levels of education, or whatever you wanted. Second, that this article/graph is using an objective figure of gun ownership versus a per capita figure of homicide. Per capita gun ownership is actually declining in America:  A smaller proportion of Americans are buying more and more guns, but you're going to be about as likely to shoot someone whether you have ten guns or twenty guns. However, the objective number of Americans with guns also increases because America's population continues to increase. Same thing for murders--the murder rate is decreasing, but I bet if you were graphing total number of murders it would increase, simply because 8 murders per 100,000 people in a population of 100,000 is 8 murders, but 5/100k in a population of 300,000 is 15 murders. So more people are dead even though each individual person in the population has a lower chance of getting murdered. Third, the United States has by far the largest number of privately owned firearms in the world (source), both in terms of per capita ownership (88.8 guns per 100 people in 2007) and total quantity, thanks to her enormous population. If the NRA argument about more guns leading to safety was true, you should see the US having a very low firearms homicide rate due to the mutually assured destruction element of every murder potentially leading to an OK Corral style gunfight. In actual fact, the US firearms homicide rate is 3.6 per 100,000, which is the 14th highest of the 75 countries listed there. Countries with effective gun control (I'm going to use island countries here because they're theoretically the most efficient at controlling the flow of guns across their borders) have much, much lower firearms homicide rates: the UK has a firearms homicide rate of 0.04, practically one one hundredth of America's, while Australia's is 0.13 and Japan's is a whopping 0.00. But of course that's easily countered by saying they're islands, and can stop shipments of guns across their borders easily. Very true. But Canada, socialist hellhole that we are, only has a firearms homicide rate of 0.5, one seventh of the US rate. And that's with us owning one third as many firearms per capita (but a lot less handguns, which are strictly controlled), AND having the problem of an incredibly porous border with the trigger-happy United States which gun runners can ship as many guns across as they like. Regardless, a culture that isn't obsessed with guns and effective gun control of legal weapons leads to a much lower firearms homicide rate despite us still having a large number of legal and illegal guns. But the NRA will counter that, sure, you have more people drown in backyard pools when everybody has a backyard pool. But those firearms are preventing little old ladies from being stabbed to death by knife-wielding Furthermore, justifiable homicide (such as shooting someone in self defence) is extraordinarily rare, even in the US. The FBI recorded a whole 260 instances in 2011, 201 of which were with firearms. Maybe that's 201 people that would be dead with stricter gun control, but how many of the 8,583 firearms deaths total would have been spared with that same effective gun control? Finally, the hidden death toll of widespread firearms ownership is suicide. In the United States you are twice as likely to kill yourself with a firearm as to be killed by one. 19,392 Americans killed themselves with firearms in 2010 (compared to 8,974 firearms homicides that year), and studies have shown that "Those persons with guns in the home, regardless of the type of gun, number of guns, or storage practice, were at significantly greater risk of dying from a firearm homicide and firearm suicide than those without guns in the home" (source), while (for example) the Israeli military has seen success in reducing soldiers' suicides by stopping them from taking their guns home, because suicide with a firearm present is a momentary, final, and irreversible decision while suicide by other means takes more time and requires more preparation, while also giving the person much more of a chance to change their mind and call for help, even after doing something like slashing their wrists or taking too many pills, compared to pulling a trigger and instantly dying. Even if the argument that everyone should have a gun because it would prevent all crimes were true, it's implicitly saying that you're willing to have large numbers of people kill themselves with firearms in order to prevent small numbers of people from dying at the hands of others, which is an interesting moral dilemma to say the least. vyelkin fucked around with this message at 05:05 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 04:59
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Even if the argument that everyone should have a gun because it would prevent all crimes were true, it's implicitly saying that you're willing to have large numbers of people kill themselves with firearms in order to prevent small numbers of people from dying at the hands of others, which is an interesting moral dilemma to say the least. What an excellent post - thank you for taking the time to write this up.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 07:23
|
|
|
There was someone in Libya on NPR today (IIRC, she was in BENGHAZI  ) making the armed society is a polite society argument. She agreed when the reporter asked if no one having guns would be better.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 08:40
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:In fairness, I've seen a lot of analysts and articles expressing concern over China's military capabilities, especially the Dong-Feng carrier killer and J-20 stealth fighter. If it comes down to a shooting war, China can probably keep US forces from doing anything west of Hawaii. Uhhhhuuuuuuuuuuum no this is not true at all. All the sudden the most expensive, advanced, and effective military in the world can't go west of hawaii. That is complete rubbish.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Play posted:Uhhhhuuuuuuuuuuum no this is not true at all. All the sudden the most expensive, advanced, and effective military in the world can't go west of hawaii. That is complete rubbish. Plus, of course, that's assuming the analysts are accurate and not just playing Chicken Little to drum up support for US military expenditure.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
darthbob88 posted:Plus, of course, that's assuming the analysts are accurate and not just playing Chicken Little to drum up support for US military expenditure. It is always safe to assume this.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 09:23
|
|
|
China has a very good military, and are, at the very least, our peer in the front of military research. That said if Tom Clancy World ever happened and we got in a military dick measuring contest with them, it'd be pretty bad for both sides. They couldn't really 'keep us' from doing anything, and both of us most likely would lose a lot. That, also, is why the whole "AND WHAT IF CHINA CALLS IN OUR DEBT AND SENDS THE TROOPS IN" is utter horse poo poo, China knows a hot war with the US would utterly devastate both of us, and they'd rather not gut themselves just to hurt us as well. China's got a lot of good toys like us, but they're also run by a political faction that knows their current situation is a very delicate one to maintain. They have no interest in whipping out their military and making a big 'come at me bro' to anyone but Japan, and even then they're very cagey about it since they're our
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 15:20
|
|
|
"Calls in our debt" is also bullshit reliant on not knowing how government debt works.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:"Calls in our debt" is also bullshit reliant on not knowing how government debt works. You mean that government debt isn't secured by making the president crawl on his hands and knees to the Chinese president and begging for a cash loan that must be repaid by.....OUR CHILDREN!?!?! It's just another symptom of the international government finance = your household budget comparison that the news pushes because the average person has no interest in learning how government is actually paid for.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 16:42
|
|
|
VideoTapir posted:"Calls in our debt" is also bullshit reliant on not knowing how government debt works. Well obviously, I'm just saying if you want to debate it on their insane and ignorant level it doesn't even work.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
zoux posted:You mean that government debt isn't secured by making the president crawl on his hands and knees to the Chinese president and begging for a cash loan that must be repaid by.....OUR CHILDREN!?!?!
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 16:57
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:China has a very good military, and are, at the very least, our peer in the front of military research.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
I like to imagine they have a mental picture of Mao pulling up in a flatbed to repo America.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 18:00
|
|
|
My mental image is that you come home one day and a Chinese family is living in your house.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
RenegadeStyle1 posted:My mental image is that you come home one day and a Chinese family is living in your house. Thanks a lot Debbie Spend-it-now.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 18:59
|
|
|
RenegadeStyle1 posted:My mental image is that you come home one day and a Chinese family is living in your house. China is Israel now?
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
RenegadeStyle1 posted:My mental image is that you come home one day and a Chinese family is living in your house. That'd be the best version yea, just one day you wake up, come out of your bedroom and there's just a Chinese dude chilling on your couch and you know 'well I'll be, my alcoholic uncle was right...'
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:14
|
|
|
RenegadeStyle1 posted:My mental image is that you come home one day and a Chinese family is living in your house. Mine is that you come home one day to the same family but they're now Chinese.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:42
|
|
|
RenegadeStyle1 posted:My mental image is that you come home one day and a Chinese family is living in your house. But thankfully, they're willing to share and share alike and so it just turns into a hit sitcom premise.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 19:43
|
|
|
quote:Looks like Florida has a Sheriff like Arizona has. A variation of this is from way back in the thread too, but I just got the above by e-mail (gee thanks coworker). "Yeah! Shoot them illegals 68 times! Why should the liberal media question that?"
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 21:42
|
|
|
Caustic posted:A variation of this is from way back in the thread too, but I just got the above by e-mail (gee thanks coworker). Apparently Judd actually is the originator of this quote, a nice change of pace for these kinds of emails. It also seems like all variations of this have a "Oh my god, what a line! Get it? Wink nudge!" kind of sentiment. edit: Also to be accurate, Judd should have said, "If you are accused of killing a policeman it means no arrest ...no Miranda rights ...no negotiations ...nothing but as many bullets as we can shoot into you ...PERIOD." KillerJunglist fucked around with this message at 22:16 on May 31, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 22:11
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:China has a very good military, and are, at the very least, our peer in the front of military research. That said if Tom Clancy World ever happened and we got in a military dick measuring contest with them, it'd be pretty bad for both sides. They couldn't really 'keep us' from doing anything, and both of us most likely would lose a lot. Keep in mind, China has rarely (if ever) demonstrated competent military leadership, and has lost to every major power that has so much as glanced at them, including Japan (twice!), and doesn't even have a good internal record (Taiping rebellion, for one). Even if they wanted too start a war, China wouldn't be an effective fighting force.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 23:28
|
|
|
Shadowed Bacon posted:Keep in mind, China has rarely (if ever) demonstrated competent military leadership, and has lost to every major power that has so much as glanced at them, including Japan (twice!), and doesn't even have a good internal record (Taiping rebellion, for one). Even if they wanted too start a war, China wouldn't be an effective fighting force. That's the China of sixty years ago. A lot can change in fifty years, especially with a national consciousness that acutely remembers its defeats over the past century and wants to ensure they never happen again. Not to say that the "China's gonna invade/call in our loans!!!" crowd isn't silly, but that's not particularly fair to China, either. :p
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 23:33
|
|
|
Shadowed Bacon posted:Keep in mind, China has rarely (if ever) demonstrated competent military leadership, and has lost to every major power that has so much as glanced at them, including Japan (twice!), and doesn't even have a good internal record (Taiping rebellion, for one). Even if they wanted too start a war, China wouldn't be an effective fighting force. Korea and India, but otherwise, you have a point.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
RenegadeStyle1 posted:My mental image is that you come home one day and a Chinese family is living in your house. That actually did happen to a friend of my fathers. I mean, he paid him for it, but still it was weird. The guy actually had him move out with just his clothes and his computer. He had to leave his kids drawings still on the fridge.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 00:43
|
|
|
Caustic posted:A variation of this is from way back in the thread too, but I just got the above by e-mail (gee thanks coworker). How does this co-worker feel about the administration's use of drone strikes?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 00:58
|
|
|
AdjectiveNoun posted:That's the China of sixty years ago. A lot can change in fifty years, especially with a national consciousness that acutely remembers its defeats over the past century and wants to ensure they never happen again. Not to say that the "China's gonna invade/call in our loans!!!" crowd isn't silly, but that's not particularly fair to China, either. :p China's had multiple major defeats over many centuries, and every time whoever is in charge says it will never happen again and they try to modernize the military, only to have it happen again. Granted the PRC has had more "wins"( according to Wikipedia, most are "uprisings" and Tibet is listed two times) than would be expected judging from the past, but I think most of those wins are too minor to judge China's military power. Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Korea and India, but otherwise, you have a point. eh, Korea "ended" (technically it's not over yet but whatever) in a stalemate, due to the whole thing devolving into a trench warfare stalemate, not a good judge of leadership for both sides. I'll give you India though, I was not aware of that conflict, interesting stuff. On a different track, the whole "CHINA GONNA OWN US!" reminds me of the fear of Japan's economy from the 80's and 90's, up until the economy tanked.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
And Arabs for about 2 decades following the OPEC embargo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 01:20
|
|
|
Fulchrum posted:That actually did happen to a friend of my fathers. would you like to elaborate on this?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:I once explained government debt to my grandfather who said it sounded like voodoo and it made him more upset. That's fair. It is voodoo, and it should make people upset. Leon Einstein posted:The only reason China is the USA's peer as far as military research goes is because they steal the poo poo out of it. I found this to be a very cost efficient tactic in Civilization style games.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Shadowed Bacon posted:China's had multiple major defeats over many centuries, and every time whoever is in charge says it will never happen again and they try to modernize the military, only to have it happen again. Granted the PRC has had more "wins"( according to Wikipedia, most are "uprisings" and Tibet is listed two times) than would be expected judging from the past, but I think most of those wins are too minor to judge China's military power. You're completely talking out of your rear end here. China has had lots of military victories and lots of defeats over many centuries, and none of it means anything for the modern day. I mean are you going to try to predict France's current military power based on Napoleon's record? The PLA was a pretty terrifying force in the 1950s coming right out of a massive civil war with a huge corps of veterans troops and experienced officers, tactics specifically developed for fighting technologically superior, better-supplied forces, and what's worse the Americans completely underestimated them. When the PLA came tearing over the Yalu the Americans were totally unprepared and only narrowly avoided being thrown off the peninsula entirely. The same force handed the Indian army its rear end on a platter when the Indian government similarly failed to take it seriously. The modern PLA is a completely different organization having gone through Cultural Revolution politicization, post-Mao downsizing, the near-total merger of the PLA and the armaments industry, and 30 years of peace. The PLA arsenal has gone through major modernizations (all the war porn idiot bloggers seem able to talk about) but the PLA itself has gone through a serious loss of organizational competence. Corruption and incompetence is rampant within the officer corps and the PLA's SOE backing gives it a strong (and from a central government point of view seriously problematic) interest group that can and does push back against any attempt at reform. China's capacity to fight wars competently is at present in some doubt, but this is a new condition even in modern history and has nothing to do with its 2000 years of military history. Seriously, who would judge the Italian military based on the reputation of the Roman legions? Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 07:37 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
I didn't know where else to put this. I hate people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 07:44
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:I didn't know where else to put this. I hate people. I don't really see what the problem is, they're just saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
Good thing you don't have to take a drug test to get a paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 09:04
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:I didn't know where else to put this. I hate people. "This thing imposed on me by lovely employers because in a period of high unemployment they can do whatever they want to their employees is awful! We should impose it on the poorest people in our society purely out of spite!" Seriously, just ask him if he's ever gotten a tax break, subsidy, tax credit, tax return, etc etc etc and then ask him if he wants to be drug tested for that, because he's also taking taxpayer money that he could easily be spending on drugs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 13:51
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You're completely talking out of your rear end here. China has had lots of military victories and lots of defeats over many centuries, and none of it means anything for the modern day. I mean are you going to try to predict France's current military power based on Napoleon's record? Off topic, but... IIRC, up until Mao and the PLA, China didn't exactly have the greatest military record. Imperial China was constantly losing battles to the Tzar, Imperial Japan, the UK, etc, and ceding territory, trading rights, Honk Kong, etc etc. Mao and the PLA scared the poo poo out of everyone because, after Korea, we took him very very seriously when he was completely at ease in saying he would adapt his People's War and human wave tactics at any invading force. Whats the SOE backing?
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 14:15
|
|
|
Brawnfire posted:I didn't know where else to put this. I hate people. I like your approach here. I've recently started doing things kinda the same and it feels so much better than the bash-head-against-wall tactic of futilely trying to change minds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 14:37
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:IIRC, up until Mao and the PLA, China didn't exactly have the greatest military record. Imperial China was constantly losing battles to the Tzar, Imperial Japan, the UK, etc, and ceding territory, trading rights, Honk Kong, etc etc. You're thinking of the last 60 years of the Qing dynasty, which lasted for 300 years and was actually an enormously successful dynasty that pushed the borders of China to where they are today. The whole Tibet and (lesser-known in the West) Xinjiang separatist movements are a result of the huge swaths of territory conquered by the Qing. It takes a pretty Eurocentric view of Qing China to conclude they had a bad military record, because they won huge wars of conquest and then lost a few minor trade wars with European powers. What really brought down the Qing was a series of peasant rebellions that cut the country in half and saw ~200 million people rebel against Imperial rule while the European powers marched small armies around taking things during the chaos. Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:Whats the SOE backing? SOE stands for State Owned Industry, which are very large and often owned by the PLA and controlled by PLA generals and are a serious conflict of interest in the Chinese state in general and the military in particular. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 15:05 on Jun 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 14:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
vyelkin posted:"This thing imposed on me by lovely employers because in a period of high unemployment they can do whatever they want to their employees is awful! We should impose it on the poorest people in our society purely out of spite!" He probably will just say he doesn't do drugs so whatever. "The innocent have nothing to hide" is an easy doctrine to preach until it affects you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2013 14:58
|
|
