|
Taerkar posted:And there was really no way it would have since most aspects of it only affected long-arms instead of handguns. You mean that there is no way it would have because it end the "war on drugs", reduce poverty, or at least implement measures intended to work to that goal.
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Numlock posted:What other method is common to all humans that they could employ for their own defense? A fit, young man could be reasonably expected to be able to defend himself with nothing but his fists (in a world where guns were not available), but not most women or the elderly. So guns it is. My proposal is this. Weapons should be free for anyone who is demonstrably unable to reliably defend themselves physically: women, the frail elderly, the disabled, and physically extremely diminutive, but otherwise able-bodied males. A man who is of even average physical strength, not. Just think about it. It's ingenious. Owning a gun as a male suddenly becomes handing in your Man Card, and potential rape victims get to shoot their attackers in the dick. If you hate this, you hate freedom. Numlock posted:I am sure that you would agree that the right to self-defense is one of those great rights, after all what use are those other rights if others can enslave or harm you at their whim?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I don't understand your point about "linear distribution" of homicide rate, but 1. if you just bother to check the actual plot, you'll see neither of these two countries I had data available for and Luxembourg probably isn't messing up the results much, 2. the fit is almost as good as when I fit logged and z-scored data. Sorry, let me show you what I mean. Here's a graph I made from the 2013 UNODC data (which suffers from the usual reporting problems inherent in attempts to measure crime rates across national borders, but whatever):  (Red line is a linear fit.) Most of the first 100 or so countries (we're #108! USA! USA!) are relatively close together in homicide rate. So, for example, dropping from #3 (Singapore) to #50 (Belgium) results in an increase of only 1.4 homicides per 100,000. Now, you can look at this as a 700% increase in homicide rate between Singapore and Belgium, but relative measurements are a little meaningless when the numbers are already so small. On the other hand, going from #100 (Iran) to #150 (The Philippines) increases homicides per 100,000 by 4.7, and going from #150 to #200 (Dominican Republic) is a whopping 13.3 per 100,000. The problem with using straight rankings is that it assumes the difference between being #5 and being #65 is as significant as the difference between being #105 and #165, when the change between the latter is actually three times greater. Cingulate posted:My proposal is this. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 17:56 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Human history is full of the powerful depriving the masses of weapons so they could trample on the other freedoms and abuse the them without serious fear of destruction. "But its not like that now!" one could say but the last 150-200 or so years where representative democracies, responsive to the desires of their citizens, have been the norm (and only really in the West). It would be foolish to assume that the current state of human affairs will continue into the future without change. It could very well be that 200 years hence all of humanity could be united in common purpose for the betterment of all but it is also equally likely we could regress (from our view point anyway) to the norm of human history. Despots and other warlords waging constant war with one another while repressing their subjects in order to exploit them for more men and material for those wars. In those few cases where common man could successfully resist the will of tyrants they could win concessions to better their situation. 200 years as the norm is reeeeally stretching it when all the dudes ITT sniffing about those uncultured Americans are trying to shame the country into acting like the ones that were exploring final solutions to the problem of their endemically poor underclasses within the century. 200 years ago, the great-great-grandparents of most of the people in the US getting killed by their I guess innate inability to handle freedom were legally livestock. A world where your biggest fears are largely imaginary is a fragile thing, and deserves caution about what rights you throw away to chase off the monster under the bed. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 17:43 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
Numlock posted:Human history is full of the powerful depriving the masses of weapons so they could trample on the other freedoms and abuse the them without serious fear of destruction. "But its not like that now!" one could say but the last 150-200 or so years where representative democracies, responsive to the desires of their citizens, have been the norm (and only really in the West). It would be foolish to assume that the current state of human affairs will continue into the future without change. It could very well be that 200 years hence all of humanity could be united in common purpose for the betterment of all but it is also equally likely we could regress (from our view point anyway) to the norm of human history. Despots and other warlords waging constant war with one another while repressing their subjects in order to exploit them for more men and material for those wars. In those few cases where common man could successfully resist the will of tyrants they could win concessions to better their situation. I sincerely doubt a man can resist the approaching despotic government with naught but his fists, no matter how young and virile and manly he may be. Real life isn't anime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:I sincerely doubt a man can resist the approaching despotic government with naught but his fists, no matter how young and virile and manly he may be. Real life isn't anime. Most of the active revolts going right now are in countries that did not have a lively tradition of individual defense rights, mostly for the exact same reasons the peasants were routinely shaken down for potential armaments back in the feudal days, when poo poo goes down in a country typically it becomes kind of a moot point quickly as there's a half-dozen foreign powers wanna get their hand in the game happy to donate a bunch of milsurp to the cause and a lot of domestic arms stockpiles nobody really noticed until it was time to start tearing down statues of dear leader and poo poo. There is no scenario where you have to face down the despotic regime with your fists, though the cops seem a lot less enthusiastic to strangle the guys who might have a bunch of buddies with guns and a will to use them over unlicensed cigarette vending. A Wizard of Goatse fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:To a European, this "gun rights" thing sounds so funny, it's such a US thing. I mean, just look at it. It's almost like we have a different set of basic constitutional laws...
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 17:51
|
|
|
A Wizard of Goatse posted:There is no scenario where you have to face down the despotic regime with your fists, though the cops seem a lot less enthusiastic to strangle the guys who might have a bunch of buddies with guns and a will to use them over unlicensed cigarette vending.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The problem with using straight rankings is that it assumes the difference between being #5 and being #65 is as significant as the difference between being #105 and #165, when the change between the latter is actually three times greater. (As your raw plot shows, the data is highly non-normal, and as I said, I've fitted the same thing to various transformed data to basically the same results. Arguably, logging or possibly a 2nd-order polynomial would be slightly more appropriate than ranks, but are a bit harder to interpret.) Dead Reckoning posted:Governments have a historically p But on the other hand, what does this have to do with my proposal, which was that guns should be given to women, never to men? Liquid Communism posted:It's almost like we have a different set of basic constitutional laws...
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Seriously DR, what's your point? I fitted to ranks because the raw data isn't normally distributed. This isn't a bug, it's a feature. This is what ranking is for
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:36
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Yes. In this regard, you included a very strange one. Yet it's still there and hasn't even had a serious attempt to strike it in 224 years.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:42
|
|
|
I got a new rifle this weekend
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Here is a possibly slightly more intuitive view. So the x axis shows equality, the y axis wealth. The colored lines show the model; the color of the dots per country show the country's actual rating. So if you're a purple country surrounded by blue, you're, considering your citizen's material well-being, disproportionally murderous; if you're a blue dot in a sea of red, you're more peaceful. All of this is now in percentiles. I found some data on gun ownership, and I doubt when I put them up there, I'll see drastic changes, but let's see. Liquid Communism posted:Yet it's still there and hasn't even had a serious attempt to strike it in 224 years. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 18:54
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
Or it's a reflection that your culture isn't universal, and other cultures have different values. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:14
|
|
|
 Slightly updated color handling. Still not perfect ofc. Liquid Communism posted:Or it's a reflection that your culture isn't universal, and other cultures have different values.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:
That chart sure does say some interesting poo poo but I'm not sure said poo poo is "less guns now"
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:31
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I'm sincerely sorry you are afraid of inanimate objects, but that still doesn't make 'common sense' a valid argument for infringing upon the rights of the vast majority of gun owners who do not use their property for murder. Fortunately my argument, unlike gun otaku, is based on the totality of the available evidence, and not simply common sense. I don't care about your right to own guns anymore than I care about your right to dump toxic waste on your own property. It's also always funny to hear gun advocates accuse others of being motivated by emotion when their rationales for why they must own as many guns as they want without real restrictions are never the exemplar of Vulcan Logic, to say the least. Tezzor fucked around with this message at 23:14 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Yet it's still there and hasn't even had a serious attempt to strike it in 224 years. However in that intervening 224 years I do remember the only serious attempt by gun owners to use the second amendment for its intended purpose of resisting government tyranny: the failed attempt to keep slavery legal.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 19:49
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:Fortunately my argument, unlike gun otaku, it's based on the totality of the available evidence, and not simply common sense. Idon't care about your right to own guns anymore than I care about your right to dump toxic waste on your own property. It's also always funny to hear gun advocates accuse others of being motivated by emotion when their rationales for why they just own as many guns as they want without real restrictions are never the exemplar of Vulcan Logic, to say the least. Please explain Vulcan Logic in your own words.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 20:01
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:However in that intervening 224 years I do remember the only serious attempt by gun owners to use the second amendment for its intended purpose of resisting government tyranny: the failed attempt to keep slavery legal. Ignoring the mine wars and all that inconvenient stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 20:02
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:My proposal is this. Ah, the old (and decrepit) "compensating for something?" jibe. It's funny, for a bunch of progressive socialists d&d can be incredibly chauvinistic.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 20:12
|
|
|
Palace of Hate posted:That chart sure does say some interesting poo poo but I'm not sure said poo poo is "less guns now" kapparomeo posted:Ah, the old (and decrepit) "compensating for something?" jibe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:15
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:of course it doesn't, if at all, it argues the dominant factor is socioeconomics and therefore probably not guns. Why are you so defensive? like i/p threads there comes a point in these things where nobody can tell who is arguing about what anymore they just know they disagree vehemently
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Theres a certain subclass of Americans that, if they could ever find a way to attain financial security, would move the US dot all the way to the right.The question is how do you turn sweet sweet Georgia into Vermont?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:Ah, the old (and decrepit) "compensating for something?" jibe. I have no problem with owning as many guns as you want, shooting as much as you can afford or carrying concealed weapons for self-defense. But if you really feel the need to walk around in urban settings with visible firearms where it is not considered normal there is a good chance you are looking to intimidate people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:Ignoring the mine wars and all that inconvenient stuff. I don't consider those serious attempts; note that they were also failures.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:12
|
|
|
How about the usual counterpoint Tezzor - the USA has spent a decade of time, uncounted billions in resources and tens of thousands of soldiers killed and maimed to keep a bunch of goatherders with rusty Kalashnikovs behaving in countries that are bare fractions the size of America, and despite all that has achieved the square root of diddly-squat.
kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jul 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
tumblr.txt posted:If guns "only existed to kill other people" no-one would make any rifles in 22lr. quote:From the BJS: This point is completely incorrect and clearly meant to appeal to the moronic "Hehe, 22 just bounces off leather and can't do poo poo" dick measuring tough guys love to do (though I would not accuse you of being that tough guy, but rather just buying the BS internet tough guys put out about 22's because occasionally their penetration with the first shot is stopped). The name of the game with criminal weapons is either cheap, disposable, and small (ie, 22, 25, 32, 9mm) or so common that they're easy to steal. I've lived in poor rural areas where people (illegally) hunt deer and boar with .22s (both WMR and LR). You don't buy a 1000 dollar handgun just to have to toss it a couple weeks in after you shoot someone. You buy stolen guns or you get a lovely low caliber gun from whatever source you can. I also love people claiming 22 is a useless round for a killing or mass shooting. They should probably talk to the deadliest modern American mass shooter Cho, about using a 9mm and a 22. Yes it's tiny, but it also has virtually zero recoil and is one of the easiest rounds to fire and control. The learning curve is fast and the weapons are cheap. Can we at least agree that private sales should not have this three day clause where the weapon can be sold before the check is complete? Edit: Yes, I get handgun vs. rifle, but 22 rifles are used commonly in crime too. From the same BLS study linked prior, 4.4% of cops killed with guns are killed with .22 rifles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Here is the result when including # of guns per capita into the model. As you see, gun ownership rate does fuckall (model improvement is as close to zero as you can get), it's still all socioeconomics. (However, I'm not sure this is a good number on rate of gun ownnership. For example, Germany is ranked #25, and I'd argue Germany has comparatively strict laws.)code:
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
Do you have a link?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:04
|
|
|
Tezzor posted:However in that intervening 224 years I do remember the only serious attempt by gun owners to use the second amendment for its intended purpose of resisting government tyranny: the failed attempt to keep slavery legal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnson_County_War https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartford_coal_mine_riot Just a few, found by googling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:06
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Do you have a link?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:11
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Why not make guns mandatory? I don't mean a firearms safety class, I mean mandatory open carry for all adult citizens. Conscientious objectors from the peace churches can opt out if they hate America so bad. I still don't think comparing relative rankings tells us that much from a policy standpoint, but I do want to say that this is a really nice visualization and I understand much more clearly the point you're making.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:13
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Sorry, for what specifically? For the OLS regression
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Numlock posted:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946) I can think of a few cases of the US military being opposed by armed Americans for a bit longer though. Even one (one) famous won battle.   mugrim posted:For the OLS regression Do you mean the raw data? Dead Reckoning posted:I can think mass transit is a good thing and a net benefit for society, without thinking it should be mandatory for all citizens all the time. (I know Mugrim disagrees.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Sorry, I still don't get it. You have the regression right there. There is no source on this, I jsut did it myself. Yes. It's pretty raw just out there.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
mugrim posted:Yes. It's pretty raw just out there. You can probably get better data from Wikipedia. I have it all in a Python notebook that should be basically transparent, although it would need some cleaning up. If people care, I could upload it somewhere. It's a bit annoying how wrong both of these posts are dealing with the data they have though. The racist guy is just bad bad bad at dealing with the data. The Guardian article looks at gun homicides vs. gun ownership (instead of total homicides), and ignores socioeconomics entirely (there is a fairly strong relationship between socioeconomics and gun ownership). Edit: I'm not saying I'm dealing with this perfectly. But a lot less horrible than these two. Cingulate fucked around with this message at 00:31 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:How about the usual counterpoint Tezzor - the USA has spent a decade of time, uncounted billions in resources and tens of thousands of soldiers killed and maimed to keep a bunch of goatherders with rusty Kalashnikovs behaving in countries that are bare fractions the size of America, and despite all that has achieved the square root of diddly-squat. There are arguments to be made but I've never seen much benefit in theorycrafting the pretend revolution. I'm concerned with real demonstrable effects happening today.
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 01:01
|
|
|
mugrim posted:This point is completely incorrect and clearly meant to appeal to the moronic "Hehe, 22 just bounces off leather and can't do poo poo" dick measuring tough guys love to do (though I would not accuse you of being that tough guy, but rather just buying the BS internet tough guys put out about 22's because occasionally their penetration with the first shot is stopped). The name of the game with criminal weapons is either cheap, disposable, and small (ie, 22, 25, 32, 9mm) or so common that they're easy to steal. I've lived in poor rural areas where people (illegally) hunt deer and boar with .22s (both WMR and LR). You don't buy a 1000 dollar handgun just to have to toss it a couple weeks in after you shoot someone. You buy stolen guns or you get a lovely low caliber gun from whatever source you can. Source your numbers. Given that there have been at most about 320 murders per year in the US with rifles of all types and calibers, and on average about 10 police officers a year are killed with rifles of all types. I would suggest that 4.4% number is being used to seem much larger than it actually is, as given the number of officers killed that would represent a single officer per year or less. Either that, or the study is conflating .223 with .22LR, and as you can probably tell by the below example, they are very different rounds with similar diameters.  Roof being able to buy the gun is more of an issue with our current patchwork of hodgepodged reporting laws than anything. The states select just what they report to NICS, and when, so they may not have the most up to date and clear information possible with which to make a judgement. That is definitely a point on which we could improve, but the 'States' Rights!' crowd screams every time someone brings it up. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 01:10 on Jul 13, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 08:13 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Source your numbers. Already did, go back to the post, it's on the last page of the pdf. It is an older number, but this idea that having a 22 can't be for killing people is hilariously false. Moreover, the numbers explicitly point out 22s as being among the most desirable weapons for criminals (because they're cheap) mugrim posted:Edit: Yes, I get handgun vs. rifle, but 22 rifles are used commonly in crime too. quote:Roof being able to buy the gun is more of an issue with our current patchwork of hodgepodged reporting laws than anything. The states select just what they report to NICS, and when, so they may not have the most up to date and clear information possible with which to make a judgement. That is definitely a point on which we could improve, but the 'States' Rights!' crowd screams every time someone brings it up. Regardless of reporting laws, do you believe the current standard should be "If we can't find the paperwork in three days, oh well!"?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2015 01:44
|
|