|
Laranzu posted:You are ignoring a fairly important statistical difference in that the other anglosphere populations are historically more culturally and racially homogenous and have a longer history of being so. The disparity in Australia (90% white of European origin) and Britain (87%ish) to the US (72%ish overall) is a difference. The US has an entire race that isn't allowed to homogenize even now. They don't have mass casualties every 60 days and still have violent crime and homicide rates significantly smaller than ours (almost 1:1 in many cases with the number of weapons per person in the country). Yes there are one off terrorist events here and there everywhere else, but they do not happen with anything remotely close to the frequency that we have mass shootings. There primary difference between us and the rest of them is we have 3-5x or significantly more weapons per person and have such ease of access there might as well not be any laws restricting gun sales at all. Also nice subtle way of saying "it's all immigrants' fault"
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
Laranzu posted:Are you trying to argue that a homogenous collective population isn't less likely to kill each other? So what you're saying is the problem is minorities?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
I read what you posted and you said that the primary explanation as to why there aren't massacres in those places is their homogeneous race and then said that they're having an upswing in attacks because they have a larger immigrant population. I'm not saying you meant it that way, but that's the way it reads. Also a lot of these massacres are white americans killing white americans, so that doesn't hold water either.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 04:50
|
|
|
I mean I'm with you, no war but class war, but that isn't what you posted originally said. But the haves vs the have nots isn't a full explanation. Not to the extent that we have such a disproportionate number of massacres. There isn't such a large disparity here between other comparable countries.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
When you control for all possible explanations for the disparity in the number of attacks here vs the rest of the world, only one factor sticks out. We're still high when you control for number of private weapons in the populace. I have no doubt that if we had the same weapons rate as other countries that we would still have higher violent crime and homicide rates for all the enumerated reasons before (class struggles, mental health, criminal justice system, etc. are worse than the rest) but they are not so different that they explain the massive disparity in frequency of mass casualties et all here in the USA. The only difference that even remotely stands out is the 1.01 guns we have per person when the highest of any of them are at 0.3 (and all have violent crime/homicide rates 1/3 or lower than ours).
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 04:57
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:Less emphasis on race and more on culturally and shared historical frame of reference. I'll reread and see if I didn't have that clear enough. Your average american is fungible with your average other anglo around the world. You could take basically any guy from anywhere USA and swap him with a brit, an aussie, a german, etc without trouble. There will be some minor cultural differences, but the peoples are fungible. There is plenty of community here in America. It was just 17 years ago that the majority of the country solidified under dubya because we are a strong community. And even if we're not, we're not in such a hosed up dystopia that explains the massive difference in frequency of massacres here vs anywhere else.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 05:03
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:I really would say that our "rugged individualistic" upbringing as a country is the root of our violence issue, as well as our gun fetish to go with it. Other countries have that same "rugged individualistic" nature to an even more extreme. Have you ever met an aussie?
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
What I'm saying is that there are people isolated just like Nick Cruz everywhere in the anglosphere. There may be more in the USA, but not so many more that it explains the massive disparity in numbers of massacres here vs there. It's still at best a minor contribution and quite possibly a completely irrelevant distinction.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
Godholio posted:Yes, this is the point. His point came across poorly. I didn't stretch anything to a crazy extreme. There wasn't any deliberate misrepresentation. And I've been civilly and thoroughly breaking down why each point that everyone has been bringing up is invalid. It's old having to repeat myself over and over, though.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 06:13
|
|
This intentional misinterpretation of pretty simple statements and the other bullshit is getting old. If you can't have a goddamned conversation without resorting to that poo poo, just don't try.
|
Laranzu posted:Ok one more. I think we're arguing past each other. You're on massacres specifically. I'm on cause of people wanting to do it. Maybe? The bolded question is the one I'm seeking an answer to. So far the only statistically significant difference I've been able to find is the number of guns in the country. It moves in almost direct proportion where controlling for any other factor changes nothing. If other countries had the same ready access to weapons, they'd see similar massacre rates from their Stephen Paddocks. Australia had their last one in 1996 and haven't really since (because they took proactive steps and massively limited their private gun ownership). Pretty much when any country in the world has gone to lengths to restrict the access to firearms it's caused a precipitous decline in massacres, violent crime, and homicide rates. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 06:17 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 06:15
|
|
|
Laranzu posted:Not trying to be a dick, actually interested, have any lit or studies with these factors controlled for? I've actually thought about setting up and running some regressions just to see what I could come up with, but I've got studying to do so I haven't bothered. Here's a pretty good article that breaks down a lot of the stuff I've said: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/07/world/americas/mass-shootings-us-international.html There have been a few more I'll just start linking them when I stumble across them again.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 06:26
|
|
|
And godholio I don't want to chase anyone off with being lovely. I want to figure out how to change your mind because changing your mind is the only way we do something about this. People like you are the hurdle to change, so if I can figure out a way to convince you then I can convince others as well.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 06:28
|
|
|
kupachek posted:This one is actually pretty tame. I advise you to avoid some of the other ones because they are full of both sides who are so entrenched and pulling the no comprise bit that it's nothing but a mess. I've met plenty of Aussies, Brits, and Germans that are basically bog standard Americans and I've met plenty of Americans that are bog standard Europeans. Yes there is some cultural differences, but the American Way doesn't explain mass shootings every 3 days. Like I'm not going to say we're identical. Far from it. Our cultural differences probably does make some amount of impact on the total number of violent crimes. For example, Germany bucks the trend of being on an exact ratio with the US like Canada despite the same gun ownership there is significantly less in Germany. Likewise Japan has some of the lowest homicide and violent crime rates in the world. Culture does absolutely play a part, but the part is generally minor in comparison to other factors. The biggest difference, though, is the number of guns. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 16:29 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 16:12
|
|
|
Edited in the response to your first part of the post.Godholio posted:You can start by electing Democrats to the national stage who don't take positions about wanting to ban guns. I do not trust such people with a literal list of gun owners and addresses. This situation is not something I am interested in repeating. It's wrong with DACA, it would be wrong for guns. If anything, the DACA registration should serve as a warning to everyone: your government might be ok right now, but what happens in 4/8/20/40 years? DACA was an EO. The 2nd amendment is a part of the constitution. Can you see the difference? In 50 years if the will actually exists again to amend the constitution, then yes, your weapons might at some nebulous point in the future become outlawed. I think proactive steps to regulate would reduce the possibility of that ever happening. As it stands now, this argument is fallacious because the constitution isn't getting changed anytime soon. Until 3/4 of America decide to get rid of the 2nd (which isn't likely to happen as long as America is America) this is nothing more than a phobia and isn't reasonable. Godholio posted:This government was never intended to hold the monopoly on violence, there was intentionally room for the people (through their states, an idea that developed along a very different path) to challenge it. No, I don't expect there to be an armed insurrection, nor is that the point. I look at it almost as a form of MAD; knowing that there are people out there with the means to resist will deter any attempt for the gov't to press the issue at barrel point and wreak havoc on the chain of command in any kind of CONUS event. The government absolutely has and retains the monopoly on violence. The idea that the 2nd was ever intended as any kind of check on the federal system is ludicrous. The states check the power of the federal government all the drat time, and its via the designed system not through violence or force. Godholio posted:Depending on who pulls the trigger, this forum bounces between "gently caress cops most of them should probably be dead" and "no guns allowed." It's an emotional rollercoaster in here, and I can't roll my eyes hard enough. Unless you mean something awful as whole I don't think this is really representative. I'm not even arguing that no guns should be allowed. Sure D&D may be looney, but that attitude is not the majority here outside of dumb trolling. Godholio posted:Then in the thread for actually discussing those issues, you have Laranzo posting a reasonable (at least discussable) point about how different cultures often clash, something that has literally been true for the entirety of human existence and the actual reason why America as a "melting pot" was so special, you literally twist his statement into "minorities are the problem." That's disingenuous or moronic, take your pick. This is the quarantine thread for the issue because it's typically an intractable morass. Also, laranzu's point was that socioeconomic divides in society can create violent tension. He originally framed it as the more immigrant populations the more strife, but that isn't the case. Socioeconomic division is a major cause of the tension and it has nothing to do with culture, race, or immigration status. It has to do entirely with the haves and have nots and that has no racial or cultural indicator. Godholio posted:Except that difference has existed since the first British ship landed in Australia (1788). If a glut of guns had suddenly become available and we saw a corresponding increase, this would be clear. But the guns have always been here. The violence is new. there has never been a cheaper time to buy weapons nor has ammunition ever been so plentiful. There is a constant stream of new cheap weapons flooding into the market. Overall ownership numbers have remained relatively static, but the availability and access today completely dwarfs anything from 50 years ago. And the violence isn't new. It's just getting reported now. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 17:24 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 16:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:What are you arguing then? That weapons should be regulated and controlled. That we should use a voluntary buyback to get guns off the street. That we need actual licensing and registration when it comes to firearm ownership and purchases. Godholio posted:And I'm fine with restricting access to very narrow groups of people, where there's a clear case to be made. The constant stream and low prices are irrelevant if they're not increasing ownership numbers. The constant stream and low prices allow Stephen Paddock to easily buy 55 rifles and thousands of rounds of magazines in a very short span of time. quote:Right, I remember all the school shootings when I was a kid in the 80s. Oh, and my dad talked about all the gun violence at his school as a kid too. Wait no. Back then kids used to show off their new hunting rifles and shotguns AT school. Your dad grew up in a rural area and there are still people with gun racks in their trucks in rural areas today. Kids have been getting shot in schools in the cities for decades. That's actually been a discussion earlier in this thread. Also the weapons and accessories of today were not just readily available things to anyone let alone kids back then. Godholio posted:I don't have to jump through hoops. The guns were there before. The school shootings weren't. Something changed. When you have to solve for a variable you don't pick one of the numbers, you go for X. That's not what is going on. Mass shootings have been happening here for quite a long time. This isn't something new outside of kids having ready and unfettered access to cheap weapons and ammunition. Also when you're doing actual statistical analysis of a situation there's a lot more to it than a simple algebraic formula. That's why the comparison to contemporary countries is so useful. The only explanation that has a quantifiable statistical significance is the number of weapons per person (we're 3x more armed than Canada who coincidentally has 1/3rd the violent crime and homicide rates for example) or that there is some non-quantifiable american cultural exceptionalism that makes us more likely to go on killing sprees.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 17:47
|
|
|
These incidents don't happen with anything close to the frequency expected in any other contemporary place in the world. That's what we're trying to figure out. So you compare and contrast and remove/add factors to see how much they change the expected outcome. The only thing significantly different between us and the rest of them is weapon ownership rate. The other places had mass attacks with similar frequency to us until they put in proactive weapons regulations. And yes Whitman showed that you don't need much to kill a lot of people as far as technology goes, but that was also in the 60s just going to show that these types of mass shootings have been going on for a long long time. He wasn't unique except the total number of people killed. The fact that whiteman did with just a bolt action doesn't negate the fact that easier to fire rifles with a hell of a lot larger capacity can be had for dirt cheap today compared to 1966. With regards to the total number of gun ownership remaining static despite massive amounts of gun sales, this is because people get rid of a sell old guns all the time. Static ownership just means that a large number of old weapons are leaving the market to accommodate the new ones. It doesn't mean that guns have been in the same hands this whole time or that newer weapons are the exact same as the ones from years ago. Also to your comment about Paddock being wealthy enough to buy, there's no need for anyone to buy as many weapons as he did unless you're running a shooting school or something, and even then he would have documentation or proof. That's what I'm meaning about regulation. No one needs to buy 50+ guns in a year. Mr. Nice! fucked around with this message at 18:39 on Feb 19, 2018 |
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 18:19
|
|
|
A few hundred in the 60s is a lot more than today, and there was delays in receiving things. There was nothing like the direct access people have today, and yet there were still plenty of mass shootings. I’m focusing on Paddock buying 55 rifles in a year because it shows the absurdity of the current system. There is no reason he should have been able to do so. There are few reasons anyone would ever need to buy 55 rifles in a year, and there’s no good reason anyone should have that many without some sort of license or something that justifies it.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 21:22
|
|
|
That was the original idea. States wanted their own private armies because they didn’t trust each other but the militias got their asses kicked over and over so were quickly swept to the dustbin of history.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2018 14:06
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 14:27 |
|
|
itt we remember how clinton got raked over the coals for pay to play with an actual charitable organization while in the trump universe at&t confirms it bribed the president so they could get the buyout of time warner approved.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2018 02:12
|
|