Gun Violence in America

[Wanne]

But what about all the bad hombres? But thanks for the confirmation Trumps wall is a waste of money. The problem in Chicago is there are over 100,000 gang members. The vast majority of shooting is gang related, unfortunately a lot of innocent people get caught in the middle.

 

Not sure it'd be a waste of money. Not very plausible right now...but don't think it'd be a waste. Venture to say how many of those gang members are illegals from Central America and Mexico? Not arguing the vast majority is gang related...but why is that tolerated...and rare instances like these shootings all of a sudden a cry for major change?

 

Make light of AZ with your "bad hombres" comment...cool...but it's an issue out here. But I'm sure you knew that from 1800 miles away...

[Wanne]

My reply was canned, yet you want to claim "most lefties" pinned the shooting on Republicans. But that's not generalizing or anything.

 

Pot, meet kettle.

 

 

did I miss something? Has there not been widespread blame towards Republicans for this? Personally I really don't care...I take it with a grain of salt. Just gets old. Hell...wasn't even 5 minutes after this happens and that old scab Hillary is politicizing it...and everybody jumps on board. Apologize to the people that haven't...but I'm seeing an awful lot of it.

[Wanne]

But you're fine making comments about Illinois gun laws. Got it.

 

fair point. but I can also bring up the fact I lived there at one time as well...so yeah...I can. Actually grew up there.

 

Next....

Edited October 3, 2017 by Wanne

[Dick Allen]

Not sure it'd be a waste of money. Not very plausible right now...but don't think it'd be a waste. Venture to say how many of those gang members are illegals from Central America and Mexico? Not arguing the vast majority is gang related...but why is that tolerated...and rare instances like these shootings all of a sudden a cry for major change?

 

Make light of AZ with your "bad hombres" comment...cool...but it's an issue out here. But I'm sure you knew that from 1800 miles away...

As you make comments about Illinois gun laws. lMAO.

[Dick Allen]

did I miss something? Has there not been widespread blame towards Republicans for this? Personally I really don't care...I take it with a grain of salt. Just gets old. Hell...wasn't even 5 minutes after this happens and that old scab Hillary is politicizing it...and everybody jumps on board. Apologize to the people that haven't...but I'm seeing an awful lot of it.

How long does it take Trump to politicize a terorist attack abroad?

 

 

[Wanne]

As you make comments about Illinois gun laws. lMAO.

 

guess you didn't read the previous post that I grew up there...so I'm well versed with them.

again...next.

[Dick Allen]

guess you didn't read the previous post that I grew up there...so I'm well versed with them.

again...next.

It was nice try. Once It was pointed out you were doing the exact thing you were critizing me for doing you were able to come up with something. But, you are still 1800 miles away, and you have no idea if I ever lived in AZ or not, which apparently would make me an expert.

 

It is typical of your party. You do the exact things you find fault with others doing.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Dick Allen

[Chicago White Sox]

I don’t get why this has to turn into a partisan issue. EVERYONE should want these mass shootings to stop. Anyone arguing that some additional gun control measures wouldn’t help limit the frequency of or at very least the amount of carnage caused by these events, to some extent, has clearly been brainwashed by the NRA & those in the government on its payroll.

 

Also, WTF is the rationalization for making silencers legal? I don’t follow politics that closely, but I can’t think of a more blatant example of lobbyist corruption in my entire life. I honestly hope there is a special place in hell for scum like Jeff Duncan and anyone who supports this bill.

[Reddy]

Here's some info from political scientist Alexandra Filindra, a colleague of my Dad's, about the psychology of the gun situation in America:

 

"Some basics on guns and why we are where we are:

 

1. There are between 300-350 million guns in civilian hands in the US.

2. Americans own more than half of the global civilian stock though they are 5% of world population.

3. Gun ownership in US has declined from 49% of households in the early 1970s to 36% in 2016.

4. This means that on average, a gun owning household has 8-10 firearms. A substantial percentage have a lot more.

5. Guns are expensive so your average gun owner who invests in AR15s is not a trailer park dweller. He is a middle to high SES guy.

6. The HE is intentional. Most gun owners are men. In recent years, the NRA had made some marketing appeals to women but with modest success.

7. The vast majority of gun owners are white. Based on GSS data, 90% of gun owners are white, same as it was in 1973. The share of whites in the general population is 65%, so this is an extraordinarily white bunch.

8. People don't own guns for safety even though that is the socially desirable thing to say in surveys. Remember the average gun owning household has 8 guns. What's the marginal utility of that 8th gun? How much more safety does it provide to make it a worthwhile investment?

9. In addition, analysis shows that people who are afraid of crime are more supportive of gun control.

10. Guns are an expression of white identity, a very political identity. Through firearms, whites express racial fears, prejudices, and ingroup favoritism in a symbolic way.

11. Since the 1970s the NRA has funded and supported the production of hundreds of law review articles peddling very questionable constitutional theories of the 2nd amendment. They all cite each other and ignore serious historical scholarship. These theories found their way into Scalia's Heller decision (original but hardly originalist)

12. The NRA has used these legal narratives to construct a political narrative which is popular with the base.

13. In this view, gun rights are the most important of all civil rights because on them rests the right to vote and the right to free speech. Only by reserving the right to shoot government officials can a man be secure that the government will not be tyrannical.

14. This is an explicit rejection of Weberian understandings of the state. It is also illogical. But it is oh so satisfying emotionally. Who cares about internal logic?

15. When you start out with the premise that guns are the "first right" it becomes the uber litmus test. ANY effort to restrict guns is viewed as an attempt by the state to limit people's fundamental rights. It is taken as seriously as voter ID laws.

16. At a time when demographic change, a black president, political correctness, and the alt right all hit the same button of status anxiety, prejudiced whites feel uber threatened so this narrative works. In their heads it is real.

17. Given that this is about identity, the public health campaign of emphasizing the human toll of guns can't work. We need a very different approach."

[Wanne]

It was nice try. Once It was pointed out you were doing the exact thing you were critizing me for doing you were able to come up with something. But, you are still 1800 miles away, and you have no idea if I ever lived in AZ or not, which apparently would make me an expert.

 

It is typical of your party. You do the exact things you find fault with others doing.

 

lol...my party. You didn't point out s***...save it Champ. You have zero clue what "my party" is...you assumed I was Republican.

[Wanne]

Here's some info from political scientist Alexandra Filindra, a colleague of my Dad's, about the psychology of the gun situation in America:

 

"Some basics on guns and why we are where we are:

 

1. There are between 300-350 million guns in civilian hands in the US.

2. Americans own more than half of the global civilian stock though they are 5% of world population.

3. Gun ownership in US has declined from 49% of households in the early 1970s to 36% in 2016.

4. This means that on average, a gun owning household has 8-10 firearms. A substantial percentage have a lot more.

5. Guns are expensive so your average gun owner who invests in AR15s is not a trailer park dweller. He is a middle to high SES guy.

6. The HE is intentional. Most gun owners are men. In recent years, the NRA had made some marketing appeals to women but with modest success.

7. The vast majority of gun owners are white. Based on GSS data, 90% of gun owners are white, same as it was in 1973. The share of whites in the general population is 65%, so this is an extraordinarily white bunch.

8. People don't own guns for safety even though that is the socially desirable thing to say in surveys. Remember the average gun owning household has 8 guns. What's the marginal utility of that 8th gun? How much more safety does it provide to make it a worthwhile investment?

9. In addition, analysis shows that people who are afraid of crime are more supportive of gun control.

10. Guns are an expression of white identity, a very political identity. Through firearms, whites express racial fears, prejudices, and ingroup favoritism in a symbolic way.

11. Since the 1970s the NRA has funded and supported the production of hundreds of law review articles peddling very questionable constitutional theories of the 2nd amendment. They all cite each other and ignore serious historical scholarship. These theories found their way into Scalia's Heller decision (original but hardly originalist)

12. The NRA has used these legal narratives to construct a political narrative which is popular with the base.

13. In this view, gun rights are the most important of all civil rights because on them rests the right to vote and the right to free speech. Only by reserving the right to shoot government officials can a man be secure that the government will not be tyrannical.

14. This is an explicit rejection of Weberian understandings of the state. It is also illogical. But it is oh so satisfying emotionally. Who cares about internal logic?

15. When you start out with the premise that guns are the "first right" it becomes the uber litmus test. ANY effort to restrict guns is viewed as an attempt by the state to limit people's fundamental rights. It is taken as seriously as voter ID laws.

16. At a time when demographic change, a black president, political correctness, and the alt right all hit the same button of status anxiety, prejudiced whites feel uber threatened so this narrative works. In their heads it is real.

17. Given that this is about identity, the public health campaign of emphasizing the human toll of guns can't work. We need a very different approach."

 

I honestly find most of these laughable...and purely conjecture...but whatever. I will say this in regards to #1...I keep hearing all these numbers bandied about...but whatever number somebody comes up with...I'd add about 100 million to it. There's more guns than you can shake a stick at in this nation...you're just not going to change that fact regardless of what you do.

[Reddy]

I honestly find most of these laughable...and purely conjecture...but whatever. I will say this in regards to #1...I keep hearing all these numbers bandied about...but whatever number somebody comes up with...I'd add about 100 million to it. There's more guns than you can shake a stick at in this nation...you're just not going to change that fact regardless of what you do.

The information all comes from direct research and studies conducted by political scientists and psychologists. But I'm glad you think it's laughable conjecture.

 

The war on intellectualism continues in America.

[ptatc]

The information all comes from direct research and studies conducted by political scientists and psychologists. But I'm glad you think it's laughable conjecture.

 

The war on intellectualism continues in America.

Is the data collected based on the legal guns and owners, illegal guns and owners or both.

[Wanne]

The information all comes from direct research and studies conducted by political scientists and psychologists. But I'm glad you think it's laughable conjecture.

 

The war on intellectualism continues in America.

 

Most political scientists and psychologists are liberals....so meh to your "research".

[Reddy]

Is the data collected based on the legal guns and owners, illegal guns and owners or both.

legal. obviously it's incredibly difficult to collect data on illegal gun ownership

[Reddy]

Most political scientists and psychologists are liberals....so meh to your "research".

I mean, most educated people in general are liberals. That doesn't change the facts and the data. Y'alls war on facts is one of the most maddening things about you. Facts don't change based on your political ideology, and to suggest that scientists and researchers intentionally skew and change the facts in their research because of their politics is pretty 1) disrespectful to their integrity and 2) would get them fired pretty damn quick.

 

If there's absolutely nothing you'll listen to if it comes from a perceived "liberal" source, why do you even engage in discussion?

[RockRaines]

Most political scientists and psychologists are liberals....so meh to your "research".

Can you link me to those statistics?

[RockRaines]

I sure hope this trolling doesn’t continue to dive into the depths of infowars false flag conspiracy theories.

[ptatc]

legal. obviously it's incredibly difficult to collect data on illegal gun ownership

 

this skews the results and conclusions based on that limitation. They really need to amend many of their conclusions.

1. There are between 300-350 million guns in civilian hands in the US.

2. Americans own more than half of the global civilian stock though they are 5% of world population.

3. Legal Gun ownership in US has declined from 49% of households in the early 1970s to 36% in 2016.

4. This means that on average, a gun owning household has 8-10 Legal firearms. A substantial percentage have a lot more.

5. Legal Guns are expensive so your average gun owner who invests in AR15s is not a trailer park dweller. He is a middle to high SES guy. The trailer park dweller could have illegally obtained firearms many do.

6. The HE is intentional. Most legal gun owners are men. In recent years, the NRA had made some marketing appeals to women but with modest success.

7. The vast majority of Legal gun owners are white. Based on GSS data, 90% of legal gun owners are white, same as it was in 1973. The share of whites in the general population is 65%, so this is an extraordinarily white bunch if the guns are obtained legally .

8. People don't own legal guns for safety even though that is the socially desirable thing to say in surveys. Remember the average gun owning household has 8 guns. What's the marginal utility of that 8th gun? How much more safety does it provide to make it a worthwhile investment?

9. In addition, analysis shows that people who are afraid of crime are more supportive of gun control.

10. Legal Guns are an expression of white identity, a very political identity. Through legal firearms, whites express racial fears, prejudices, and ingroup favoritism in a symbolic way.

11. Since the 1970s the NRA has funded and supported the production of hundreds of law review articles peddling very questionable constitutional theories of the 2nd amendment. They all cite each other and ignore serious historical scholarship. These theories found their way into Scalia's Heller decision (original but hardly originalist)

12. The NRA has used these legal narratives to construct a political narrative which is popular with the base.

13. In this view, gun rights are the most important of all civil rights because on them rests the right to vote and the right to free speech. Only by reserving the right to shoot government officials can a man be secure that the government will not be tyrannical.

14. This is an explicit rejection of Weberian understandings of the state. It is also illogical. But it is oh so satisfying emotionally. Who cares about internal logic?

15. When you start out with the premise that legal guns are the "first right" it becomes the uber litmus test. ANY effort to restrict guns is viewed as an attempt by the state to limit people's fundamental rights. It is taken as seriously as voter ID laws.

16. At a time when demographic change, a black president, political correctness, and the alt right all hit the same button of status anxiety, prejudiced whites feel uber threatened so this narrative works. In their heads it is real.

17. Given that this is about identity, the public health campaign of emphasizing the human toll of guns can't work. We need a very different approach."

18. Whites are the group the most often obtain their guns legally and register them. could be added

 

See how this changes the conclusions. I've done enough research and published enough to know that inclusion and exclusion criteria change the outcomes. For example, most of my research is done on healthy athletic subjects. Would a new intervention that helps that group be applicable for use in a 73 year old sedentary person with a history of a stroke? No.

 

I'm not saying everything stated here is false or misleading but you need to be very careful with using any research and generalizing it as facts when they have serious limitations. This is why there are perfectly valid and reliable studies which can show two opposing views in any field.

Edited October 4, 2017 by ptatc

[Dick Allen]

Most political scientists and psychologists are liberals....so meh to your "research".

Yep. The only way to determine if research is legit or not is to find out where the researcher is politically. If they are liberal, their brains don't work correctly.

 

That's why people don't understand trickle down economics works tremendously, and global warming is a hoax, because scientists are liberal.

Edited October 4, 2017 by Dick Allen

[ptatc]

I mean, most educated people in general are liberals. That doesn't change the facts and the data. Y'alls war on facts is one of the most maddening things about you. Facts don't change based on your political ideology, and to suggest that scientists and researchers intentionally skew and change the facts in their research because of their politics is pretty 1) disrespectful to their integrity and 2) would get them fired pretty damn quick.

 

If there's absolutely nothing you'll listen to if it comes from a perceived "liberal" source, why do you even engage in discussion?

Yes, they do. And do it quite often as a matter of fact. Especially academics working toward their doctoral degrees or working on a big grant. It's quite easy to skew a project one way or another to show what you want. It doesn't always work that way but it does happen. It's not changing facts because with the inclusion or exclusion criteria you already mostly determined where the facts will lead.

 

Edit: I need to amend this a little. I'm not saying it's always done intentionally. As with the data you presented, it's sometimes done for ease of access. As you stated, it would be hard to get data for illegal guns. However, I would hope that the original article/publication listed this as a limitation in the study.

 

There is also the process of getting published where well known people will get published more often and have an easier time getting the articles published. They are blinded for reviews but I've done reviews and when its a certain topic presented in a certain way, people in the field really know who wrote it.

Edited October 4, 2017 by ptatc

[Balta1701]

I don’t get why this has to turn into a partisan issue. EVERYONE should want these mass shootings to stop. Anyone arguing that some additional gun control measures wouldn’t help limit the frequency of or at very least the amount of carnage caused by these events, to some extent, has clearly been brainwashed by the NRA & those in the government on its payroll.

 

Also, WTF is the rationalization for making silencers legal? I don’t follow politics that closely, but I can’t think of a more blatant example of lobbyist corruption in my entire life. I honestly hope there is a special place in hell for scum like Jeff Duncan and anyone who supports this bill.

The motivation is apparently to protect the hearing of people who do a lot of shooting, or at least that's what's presented publicly.

 

[RockRaines]

The motivation is apparently to protect the hearing of people who do a lot of shooting, or at least that's what's presented publicly.

According to DTJ its for kids to get into shooting.

 

Ear plugs apparently dont exist

[Dick Allen]

According to DTJ its for kids to get into shooting.

 

Ear plugs apparently dont exist

Guns in the hands of children is something we need more of.

[Reddy]

this skews the results and conclusions based on that limitation. They really need to amend many of their conclusions.

1. There are between 300-350 million guns in civilian hands in the US.

2. Americans own more than half of the global civilian stock though they are 5% of world population.

3. Legal Gun ownership in US has declined from 49% of households in the early 1970s to 36% in 2016.

4. This means that on average, a gun owning household has 8-10 Legal firearms. A substantial percentage have a lot more.

5. Legal Guns are expensive so your average gun owner who invests in AR15s is not a trailer park dweller. He is a middle to high SES guy. The trailer park dweller could have illegally obtained firearms many do.

6. The HE is intentional. Most legal gun owners are men. In recent years, the NRA had made some marketing appeals to women but with modest success.

7. The vast majority of Legal gun owners are white. Based on GSS data, 90% of legal gun owners are white, same as it was in 1973. The share of whites in the general population is 65%, so this is an extraordinarily white bunch if the guns are obtained legally .

8. People don't own legal guns for safety even though that is the socially desirable thing to say in surveys. Remember the average gun owning household has 8 guns. What's the marginal utility of that 8th gun? How much more safety does it provide to make it a worthwhile investment?

9. In addition, analysis shows that people who are afraid of crime are more supportive of gun control.

10. Legal Guns are an expression of white identity, a very political identity. Through legal firearms, whites express racial fears, prejudices, and ingroup favoritism in a symbolic way.

11. Since the 1970s the NRA has funded and supported the production of hundreds of law review articles peddling very questionable constitutional theories of the 2nd amendment. They all cite each other and ignore serious historical scholarship. These theories found their way into Scalia's Heller decision (original but hardly originalist)

12. The NRA has used these legal narratives to construct a political narrative which is popular with the base.

13. In this view, gun rights are the most important of all civil rights because on them rests the right to vote and the right to free speech. Only by reserving the right to shoot government officials can a man be secure that the government will not be tyrannical.

14. This is an explicit rejection of Weberian understandings of the state. It is also illogical. But it is oh so satisfying emotionally. Who cares about internal logic?

15. When you start out with the premise that legal guns are the "first right" it becomes the uber litmus test. ANY effort to restrict guns is viewed as an attempt by the state to limit people's fundamental rights. It is taken as seriously as voter ID laws.

16. At a time when demographic change, a black president, political correctness, and the alt right all hit the same button of status anxiety, prejudiced whites feel uber threatened so this narrative works. In their heads it is real.

17. Given that this is about identity, the public health campaign of emphasizing the human toll of guns can't work. We need a very different approach."

18. Whites are the group the most often obtain their guns legally and register them. could be added

 

See how this changes the conclusions. I've done enough research and published enough to know that inclusion and exclusion criteria change the outcomes. For example, most of my research is done on healthy athletic subjects. Would a new intervention that helps that group be applicable for use in a 73 year old sedentary person with a history of a stroke? No.

 

I'm not saying everything stated here is false or misleading but you need to be very careful with using any research and generalizing it as facts when they have serious limitations. This is why there are perfectly valid and reliable studies which can show two opposing views in any field.

 

The vast majority of gun deaths come from legally owned and obtained guns. YOU are the one skewing the information for your benefit.