Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #251  
Old 12-19-2018, 05:56 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
So to be clear you are indeed arguing for banning guns.

We don't get such honesty in most threads or from politicians. We are told that you just want to ban bump stocks, or AR-15s, or 30 round magazines and that nobody has any intention of telling you that you cannot keep guns in your home or own hunting rifles and shotguns.

We are told that is the slippery slope logical fallacy and that your side only wants "reasonable restrictions" on guns.

Are you admitting that we were right all along?
Can we paint all conservatives with the laughably broad strokes you're attempting to use?
  #252  
Old 12-19-2018, 06:16 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
Can we paint all conservatives with the laughably broad strokes you're attempting to use?
Maybe you will answer the question? I am not playing any gotcha games. We hear all of the time that your side does not want to ban guns but only wants "reasonable restrictions."

And then we get into multiple pages of these threads where you are talking about banning guns. Which is it?
  #253  
Old 12-19-2018, 06:23 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Maybe you will answer the question? I am not playing any gotcha games. We hear all of the time that your side does not want to ban guns but only wants "reasonable restrictions."

And then we get into multiple pages of these threads where you are talking about banning guns. Which is it?

I have had posters say they "only" want to ban all handguns or all semi-automatics. In one case, everything but single shot rifles. But they're not in favor of a Gun ban, oh no.
  #254  
Old 12-19-2018, 06:53 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Okay, let's explore this, shall we? I propose compiling a list of the largest 40 or 50 or any reasonable number of cities in Canada and the U.S. (for the purposes of this proposal, these two nations are considered to comprise "North America") and gathering data for each on:

1. How "homogeneous" each is (for which we will obviously have to define the term).
2. How much poverty each has (ditto).
3. How much violent crime each suffers.
4. How much violent crime specifically involving guns each suffers.
5. The per-capita gun ownership rate.
6. Any other relevant criteria, for which I am open to suggestion.

I propose one potential null hypothesis could be:

H0: The nationality of a city plays no significant role in the per-capita gun-crime rate.

I'm inclined to think this could readily be rejected, but I'm prepared to do the whole stats thing if anyone is interested. According to wikipedia, the 30 largest cities in "North America" (as defined above) are, with Canadian cities underlined:

1. New York City
2. Los Angeles
3. Toronto
4. Chicago
5. Houston
6. Montreal
7. Philadelphia
8. Phoenix
9. San Antonio
10. San Diego
11. Dallas
12. Calgary
13. San Jose
14. Ottawa
15. Austin
16. Edmonton
17. Jacksonville
18. San Francisco
19. Indianapolis
20. Columbus
21. Fort Worth
22. Charlotte
23. Mississauga
24. Winnipeg
25. Seattle
26. Denver
27. El Paso
28. Detroit
29. Washington, D.C.
30. Boston

If there's already a flaw in the proposed methodology, best to hash it out now before data collection begins.
You know there are hundreds of criminologists in North America that spend their professional lives studying crime, gathering data, conducting experiments and doing research, writing articles and books, and working with Gov't's and private entities to understand the causes of crime and how to reduce its frequency and impact on society. Criminology is a multi-discipline field covering, among other things, economics, sociology, biology, psychology, and law. And it's highly specialized, I had one professor whose specialty was "defensive space" which involved the design of areas such as low-income housing (layout, stairways, lighting, parking etc) in order to minimize opportunities for criminal activity. That should give some indication of the complexity of these questions and their ultimate answers. So I'm pretty sure any answer is more complicated than: guns.

The problem with crime having so many possible causes is it's hard to control for any one of them. And each theoretical cause is itself amazingly complex. And it suffers from the difficulties of any social science, even "simple" people are incredibly complicated when it comes to their behavior and its root causes and also that people in general make horrible test subjects in that context.

But I'm sure your little experiment will finally get us some real answers.
  #255  
Old 12-19-2018, 07:08 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muffin View Post
When considering the racism aspect that has led to high murder and incarceration rates for black people in the USA and high murder rates and incarceration rates for indigenous people in Canada, indigenous populations in large Canadian cities tend not to be analogous black populations in similar sized American cities. Why? Gun control.

(That being said, I live in what more often than not is the murder capital of Canada, where our police department's Board of Commissioners was just sacked for what comes down to institutional racism, but even then Baltimore's murder rate is almost ten times higher than our murder rate. Racism leads to more murders, but racism and guns lead to a hell of a lot more murders.)
What aspect of racism in America and its criminal justice system are you referring to that has lead to a higher murder and incarceration rate for blacks? Offender rates? Policing and arrest rates?Prosecution? Racism in the trial process? Sentencing?

Because while racism is a factor in all of those things it is not the only factor and not even close to the primary cause. This is common knowledge among criminologists.
  #256  
Old 12-19-2018, 07:11 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
I have had posters say they "only" want to ban all handguns or all semi-automatics. In one case, everything but single shot rifles. But they're not in favor of a Gun ban, oh no.
Right. That is part of the equivocation that happens in these threads and also done by politicians. When they say, "We do not support banning guns!!!! No WAY!" they mean that they do not support completely and unconditionally destroying every single gun in existence and would allow you to keep a single shot shotgun locked up at the local armory which you could own after paying a hefty tax and registration fee and only check it out when target shooting or hunting.

See, guns are still legal and we are not banning them!

But the equivocation part comes in because people hear that statement and reasonably believe that it means that they will be allowed to keep the guns that they own in their home in the same way that they do now except that there will be extra regulations for new purchases and such. It is a dastardly little untruth.

Last edited by UltraVires; 12-19-2018 at 07:12 PM.
  #257  
Old 12-19-2018, 07:37 PM
Cheesesteak's Avatar
Cheesesteak Cheesesteak is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Lovely Montclair, NJ
Posts: 12,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
only around 10000 gun murders a year.
I just thought this bears repeating as a reminder of the conservative mindset.

10,000 murders here 10,000 murders there, pretty soon, you’re talking real numbers.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  #258  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:00 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
You know there are hundreds of criminologists in North America that spend their professional lives studying crime, gathering data, conducting experiments and doing research, writing articles and books, and working with Gov't's and private entities to understand the causes of crime and how to reduce its frequency and impact on society. Criminology is a multi-discipline field covering, among other things, economics, sociology, biology, psychology, and law. And it's highly specialized, I had one professor whose specialty was "defensive space" which involved the design of areas such as low-income housing (layout, stairways, lighting, parking etc) in order to minimize opportunities for criminal activity. That should give some indication of the complexity of these questions and their ultimate answers. So I'm pretty sure any answer is more complicated than: guns.

The problem with crime having so many possible causes is it's hard to control for any one of them. And each theoretical cause is itself amazingly complex. And it suffers from the difficulties of any social science, even "simple" people are incredibly complicated when it comes to their behavior and its root causes and also that people in general make horrible test subjects in that context.

But I'm sure your little experiment will finally get us some real answers.
Okay, so I'll mark you as an "I concede". Anyone else?
  #259  
Old 12-19-2018, 08:48 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I just thought this bears repeating as a reminder of the conservative mindset.

10,000 murders here 10,000 murders there, pretty soon, you’re talking real numbers.


500,000 tobacco deaths.

90,000 alcohol deaths.

Yeah, real numbers.
  #260  
Old 12-19-2018, 09:17 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
500,000 tobacco deaths.

90,000 alcohol deaths.

Yeah, real numbers.
Banning guns at this point would indeed be pretty useless. I'd kinda like to see the Americans embark on a generational effort to reduce the amount of fear they wallow in - fear of their own government, fear of each other, and fear of immigrants. A large part of that will be to stop voting for politicians who try to stoke those fears and then pander to them. After a few decades, one can hope the desire for lots and lots and lots of guns will seem quaint, almost silly.

Batman was right, but he limited his view to criminals. Americans overall are a pretty cowardly and superstitious lot.
  #261  
Old 12-19-2018, 10:48 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Batman was right, but he limited his view to criminals. Americans overall are a pretty cowardly and superstitious lot.
No, humans are.

But here is the real motivation for guns grabbers: "We think it might make us more safe, and since WE dont own of the nasty things, let's ban them!" But try and ban something they like or want, and they go into a tizzy.

The smokers killing FIVE TIMEs as many innocent victims as guns- talking about "smokers rights".

The boozers doing about the same "Prohibition didnt work, so we can drink all we want, even tho we too, kill others."

Those who drive over powered cars, with top speeds twice that of the legal limit.

If you smoke or drink or drive really fast cars, then you should really shut up about taking guns away.

Last edited by DrDeth; 12-19-2018 at 10:51 PM.
  #262  
Old 12-19-2018, 10:57 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Okay, so I'll mark you as an "I concede". Anyone else?
That's about the level of intellectual rigor I expect from your posts. Followed by the expected self-declaration of victory based on absolutely nothing.

I at least have a bachelor's degree in Criminal Justice with about a half-dozen criminology classes under my belt. What qualifications or educational background do you have that would even begin to make you think that your overly simplistic thesis and experiment will produce anything of real value?

There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.

H.L. Mencken
  #263  
Old 12-20-2018, 05:49 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
Back in the day, about 50% of UK suicides were accomplished via gas asphyxiation. This is because they used Coal Gas instead of Natural Gas, CG has a high proportion of carbon monoxide, making it a very convenient way to off oneself.

The UK transitioned to NG, which is no damn good for killing yourself. What do you think happened to the suicide rate in the UK? Surprising exactly nobody who put any thought into it, the suicide rate dropped significantly during the transition to natural gas, then stabilized at the lower level.

Turns out, when you take away an easy and convenient way to kill oneself, fewer people kill themselves. That desire to kill yourself, that span of time when you're actually willing to do the deed tends to be temporary. If a person survives that time in their life, they tend to not kill themselves quite as often.
Then tell me why does a country like Japan with its very strict gun control have extremely high suicide rates
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix
  #264  
Old 12-20-2018, 05:53 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
If bourbon was designed to kill old ladies, I might be in favor of banning it.

Before you explain how guns aren't designed to kill people, rest assured that whatever you claim they are actually designed to do, there's a way to accomplish exactly that, with the device being far less dangerous to people than guns are.
The purpose of a tool is defined by the user.

If I use a wrench to beat a person to death then the purpose of that wrench at the time was to beat a person to death.

It is the wielder of the weapon that is responsible for what is done with that weapon not the weapon itself

And once again the vast majority of gun owners will never commit any crime so those people are not dangerous to to other people

Here's the thing

People kill people
People have always killed people
People will always kill people
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix
  #265  
Old 12-20-2018, 05:58 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by JB99 View Post
Because the guns will be much, much harder for them to get. Does that seriously not make sense to you?

Currently, a "criminal" who wants a gun can either buy it in the store (assuming he has no record), steal it from another private gun owner, or purchase a gun illegally from his fellow criminals. If guns are taken out of circulation, that means he can neither buy nor steal the gun because there are no guns to steal. This means the guns must be imported by other criminals, and the criminal who wants to buy a gun must cultivate contacts with black marketers.

This (A) allows more opportunity to intercept the criminals at any stage of the importation process and (B) it allows us to readily distinguish the so-called 'good guys' from the 'bad guys' because anyone with a gun can be presumed to be a 'bad guy.' But most importantly, (C) it just makes the guns fucking harder to get. This means impulsive criminals with no money and no black market contacts have no means to acquire an illegal gun. Most criminals are utter morons who do not plot their crimes well in advance and do not want to put effort into setting the conditions. By taking away guns from the so-called 'law abiding' we immediately eliminate every impulsive domestic violence shooting, most suicide, and practically all shootings committed by children. Other criminals will be dissuaded by the prohibitive costs and the risks required just to get started in their enterprise. When you make it harder to commit a crime, fewer criminals put forth the effort.

What part of this is confusing to you?
you mean like illegal drugs are hard to get?

If there is money in the illicit trade of anything then that particular item will be available.

There is a thriving illegal gun market now what do you think a ban on guns will do to that illegal market?
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix
  #266  
Old 12-20-2018, 06:06 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptMurdock View Post
I'll inform your next of kin of your noble sacrifice, Hopalong. It's amazing how I've lived in this hellhole called the United States without having a veritable arsenal in my house, ready to drill potential thugs, terrorists and other nogoodnicks at a moment's notice, apparently carrying at least one weapon in hand at all times because Mr. Scumbag usually forgets to warn me adequately before he crashes through my front to violate my Cocker Spaniel. My gawwwd, what was I thinking? What of the children??

It only takes one time.

True story

Connecticut

A Doctor living in an upscale neighborhood was home one day with his wife and two teenage daughters. Two criminals who had been casing the neighborhood finally decided to act and invaded their home.

They beat the doctor severely and left him for dead then proceeded to rape and torture his wife and daughters before tying them up and burning them alive by setting the house on fire.

What were the odds of that?

If the doctor had owned a gun would it have helped?

Maybe, maybe not

But if he did own a gun his chances of saving his family from a horrible death would have at least been better

There is real violence in this world and just because you haven't been a victim as of yet in no way means you won't be in the future.
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix

Last edited by Blues Man; 12-20-2018 at 06:07 AM.
  #267  
Old 12-20-2018, 06:09 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesesteak View Post
I don't need to be any more worried about Jimmy tomorrow than I would be today, he has a gun today, and a gun tomorrow, what's the damn difference? The fact that Quick Draw McUltraVires doesn't have a gun to wave around if something happens? I'll take my chances with Jimmy, thanks.Prohibition would have worked if I couldn't brew beer in my kitchen.
or if some guy with a still didn't make moonshine by the gallon and ship it in to your town
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix
  #268  
Old 12-20-2018, 06:46 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
That's about the level of intellectual rigor I expect from your posts. Followed by the expected self-declaration of victory based on absolutely nothing.
Hey, you started with the absolutely nothing first. You had a thesis of "heterogeneous population as a cause of increased criminality or conflict in general" and when I proposed compiling some basic stats to examine this, you turned around and said it was way too complicated. Frankly, I take that as admission your statement is more dogma than fact, and you don't wish to have it examined, let alone challenged.
  #269  
Old 12-20-2018, 06:51 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
If you smoke or drink or drive really fast cars, then you should really shut up about taking guns away.
Nah - choosing to be concerned about one particular problem does not and certainly should not stifle freedom of expression, even in light of other problems. That's a first amendment thing.
  #270  
Old 12-20-2018, 11:48 AM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Hey, you started with the absolutely nothing first. You had a thesis of "heterogeneous population as a cause of increased criminality or conflict in general" and when I proposed compiling some basic stats to examine this, you turned around and said it was way too complicated. Frankly, I take that as admission your statement is more dogma than fact, and you don't wish to have it examined, let alone challenged.
It's not my thesis. It's so well known in criminology and the social sciences in general that its existence at least is seen as an accepted fact (the specifics and the strength of the effect is more debated). Here are a few sources I found with a few seconds of Google search. The last author, Sellin, is considered a pioneer in scientific criminology and one of the founders of what is commonly called Conflict Criminology.

Group Size, Heterogeneity, and Intergroup Conflict: A Test of Blau's Inequality and Heterogeneity
Robert J. Sampson

Population Heterogeneity and the Sociogenesis of Homicide
Henry B. Hansmann and John M. Quigley
Social Forces
Vol. 61, No. 1 (Sep., 1982), pp. 206-224

Culture Conflict and Crime
Thorsten Sellin
American Journal of Sociology
Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jul., 1938), pp. 97-103

Last edited by DirkHardly; 12-20-2018 at 11:52 AM.
  #271  
Old 12-20-2018, 11:53 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Okay, all the reason to study the relative diversity of American and Canadian cities to see how much impact diversity has versus how much impact gun control has.

Canadian cities may or may not be less diverse, but I'm fairly confident they are a lot less violent.
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #272  
Old 12-20-2018, 03:35 PM
BwanaBob's Avatar
BwanaBob BwanaBob is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Maryland
Posts: 3,991
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Then here is where we definitely part ways. How can the National Guard be considered a militia by the Framer's definition? It is an arm of the (ultimately) federal government!

You might as well argue that the feds can create a "Free Speech Board" in each community and that through that board (and only through that board) are citizen complaints about the government heard.

The whole point of the Second Amendment is that the government, and especially the federal government, cannot monopolize force or the use of it. Standing armies were considered dangerous and citizen militias were the cure for that.

You cannot create an arm of the government and say "There is your citizen militia" which is wholly controlled and ran by the government. The government control was the very evil addressed, by intent and principle, in the Second Amendment.
How are the people supposed to know you're "well-regulated" and not just a bunch of drunken inept clowns waving guns around? Maybe by having regulations? Like proof of training? No, that would be to simple a solution.
__________________
Go wherever you can be
And live for the day
It's only wear and tear
-IQ
  #273  
Old 12-20-2018, 03:42 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
Maybe you will answer the question? I am not playing any gotcha games. We hear all of the time that your side does not want to ban guns but only wants "reasonable restrictions."

And then we get into multiple pages of these threads where you are talking about banning guns. Which is it?
What question? You're implying ALL liberals want to take ALL guns as if it's a gotcha moment and makes everything transparent. That's not a question, it's a joke.
  #274  
Old 12-20-2018, 03:49 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
I'm kind of curious about creating a citizen's militia that is not controlled by the government. Seems to me the government, state or federal, would call that an "insurrection" and mobilize the militia they controlled to stop it.
  #275  
Old 12-21-2018, 02:46 AM
Darkon Darkon is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2018
Location: Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 224
Gestalt hasn't been around since the 8th, so I wonder if he even cares about this so called debate anymore. However, I will answer all the questions he asked in his original post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
How is THE Constitutional Right to Bear Arms So Heavily Infringed Upon?
It's not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
...[blah, blah, blah]...How is this allowed, legally...? How is this justified?
The Constitution established the Supreme Court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
...is our right to bear arms truly a Constitutional Right anymore?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
Haven't we whittled it down to almost nothing?
No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
In the whole world of "arms," many Americans are only allowed to own personal-use firearms of limited magazine [capacity]. What is the...basis behind that?
The 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gestalt View Post
...should we either open up the right to bear arms significantly...or repeal the Second Amendment altogether?
No and maybe.
  #276  
Old 12-21-2018, 04:26 AM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
How are the people supposed to know you're "well-regulated" and not just a bunch of drunken inept clowns waving guns around? Maybe by having regulations? Like proof of training? No, that would be to simple a solution.
Because nobody is arguing that the militia cannot have any restrictions or regulations anymore that free speech has no restrictions. But the restrictions cannot be such (like banning guns) that would prevent a militia entirely. You cannot have a condition precedent with the potential of destroying the right such as the government mandating certain things like training before owning guns.

I wouldn't have a problem with saying that you cannot drink booze on militia duty or that the militia is to adopt accepted methods of training and drilling. But the keeping and bearing and owning guns is one of the basic prerequisites for a militia.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chisquirrel View Post
What question? You're implying ALL liberals want to take ALL guns as if it's a gotcha moment and makes everything transparent. That's not a question, it's a joke.
The argument is that we are just being silly that NOBODY wants to take your guns. Your side in this thread and others suggest otherwise. Are you disputing that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I'm kind of curious about creating a citizen's militia that is not controlled by the government. Seems to me the government, state or federal, would call that an "insurrection" and mobilize the militia they controlled to stop it.
A militia is not an insurrection, it is "necessary to the security of a free state." It supplements the powers of the government and may indeed be called into the service of the federal government if needed under Congress' Article I powers. Reasonable regulations can be made, but it cannot be disarmed or restricted in owning arms anymore than the free press can have heavily regulated and taxed ink and paper.
  #277  
Old 12-21-2018, 06:04 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
A militia is not an insurrection
Try to assemble your own "people's militia" outside of government control, and I predict it'll get called one, and rather quickly, the moment you actually do something militia-like involving the bearing of arms. I daresay the moment you try to put this belief into action:

Quote:
Originally Posted by you, earlier
The whole point of the Second Amendment is that the government, and especially the federal government, cannot monopolize force or the use of it.
...and decide you need not answer to any government official, state or federal, you'll find they're just fine demonstrating that they do indeed have a monopoly on force, and prison-time awaits people who decide to use force on their own. Regardless of how you want to interpret the 2nd Amendment, there's lots of other stuff in the constitution about rebellion and such.

Spoiler: the constitution's not okay with it.
  #278  
Old 12-21-2018, 06:10 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by BwanaBob View Post
How are the people supposed to know you're "well-regulated" and not just a bunch of drunken inept clowns waving guns around? Maybe by having regulations? Like proof of training? No, that would be to simple a solution.
The right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on being enlisted in the militia
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix
  #279  
Old 12-21-2018, 06:18 AM
Blues Man Blues Man is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
I'm kind of curious about creating a citizen's militia that is not controlled by the government. Seems to me the government, state or federal, would call that an "insurrection" and mobilize the militia they controlled to stop it.
http://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Sec...-MILITIAS.html

Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias.

Read more: Second Amendment - Private Militias - Government, Law, Freemen, and Federal - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Sec...#ixzz5aJfthIDH
__________________
Blues is easy to play, but hard to feel
Jimi Hendrix
  #280  
Old 12-21-2018, 07:57 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Just FTR, check out Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16. Good stuff there:
Quote:
[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

[The Congress shall have Power] To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
IOW,
  #281  
Old 12-21-2018, 11:52 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blues Man View Post
http://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Sec...-MILITIAS.html

Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias.

Read more: Second Amendment - Private Militias - Government, Law, Freemen, and Federal - JRank Articles http://law.jrank.org/pages/10067/Sec...#ixzz5aJfthIDH
Interesting, but while it seems that forming a private militia is technically not illegal (except in Wyoming, where it's very clearly illegal), it doesn't look like something the state government is okey-dokey with.

The insurrectionist fantasy the articles mention is something I've found a bit amusing and a bit disturbing in recent years - the notion that a citizen's private gun collection is helping to keep tyranny in check. It's like saying you're being selfish for the greater good.
  #282  
Old 12-21-2018, 12:13 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Okay, all the reason to study the relative diversity of American and Canadian cities to see how much impact diversity has versus how much impact gun control has.

Canadian cities may or may not be less diverse, but I'm fairly confident they are a lot less violent.
Sure, more knowledge is always good, well at least in this context. Such a study might already exist. Have you done any research on the topic? Maybe the raw data has at least been compiled and can save someone a lot of effort.

And do you have any thoughts about how the methodology for such a study would control for other factors besides diversity and gun control laws with regards to effects on gun violence or violence in general? Not to mention the complexity and multi-dimensionality of terms such as "diversity" (racial, ethnic, cultural, economic, religious, geographical etc).

Also, do you concede then that a heterogeneous population is more likely to experience conflict and a higher rate of crime victimization? And do you concede that consequently those who attack someone for simply stating that fact, or go further and imply a racist motivation for the statement, are being ignorant in the former case and quite possibly a jerk in the latter?
  #283  
Old 12-21-2018, 12:24 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Just FTR, check out Article I, Section 8, Clauses 15 and 16. Good stuff there:

IOW,
Since I've seen you do this a lot over the years I feel I should point something out. Merely citing the words of the Constitution is not a legal argument. It is evidence of exactly one thing, that those words do indeed appear in the Constitution. It is the first step in a Constitutional Law argument and not even close to the only or final one. That's why we have a body of relevant case law, so courts can rule on what those words mean and how they are to be applied to a particular set of facts.

Is that what you think happens during Constitutional Law arguments in court? That one side stands and reads the relevant portion of the Constitution and then sits down? Followed by the other side standing and saying "No..." followed by reading the exact same thing? Perhaps with a different intonation or something?

So do you have an actual legal citation for whatever point you were trying to make? You know, besides an emoji?
  #284  
Old 12-21-2018, 01:09 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Sure, more knowledge is always good, well at least in this context. Such a study might already exist. Have you done any research on the topic? Maybe the raw data has at least been compiled and can save someone a lot of effort.
Well, first we have to settle on a null hypothesis. Are Canadian cities less violent? I assume this was pretty much given. Are Canadian cities less diverse? I don't know. Are Canadian cities less violent because they are less diverse (assuming they are)? If someone knows of a study along those lines, I'd like to see it.

Quote:
And do you have any thoughts about how the methodology for such a study would control for other factors besides diversity and gun control laws with regards to effects on gun violence or violence in general?
Well, when I made the proposal, I stated clearly I was open to discussing other factors anyone might suggest were relevant. So... got a suggestion? I could picture trying to control for weather, i.e. are colder cities less violent, in the sense of only looking at crime statistics for the months of May to October, for example.

Quote:
Not to mention the complexity and multi-dimensionality of terms such as "diversity" (racial, ethnic, cultural, economic, religious, geographical etc).
Indeed, it is a complex topic, hence my reluctance to just buy into a pat "we're less homogeneous, hence more violent" explanation. There are place a lot more diverse that are less violent, and it's unclear to me that "diversity" plays much of a role in, say, school shootings.

Quote:
Also, do you concede then that a heterogeneous population is more likely to experience conflict and a higher rate of crime victimization?
Well, no, that would be something I'd want to see evidence for. Further, we'd have to establish some kind of control for:

Society A: Ethnic Group 1 and Ethnic Group 2 make up the population of a city and violence occurs as a result of mere proximity.

vs.

Society B: EG1 and EG2 make up the population of a city and most of the wealth and all of the laws are controlled by members of EG1, who operate on a tacit or open policy of denying access to EG2, keeping them poor and powerless. Violence occurs as a result of enforcing this control, fighting against it and struggling to survive under it.

Further still, are we going to start identifying specific ethnic/racial groups that especially don't play well with others? Are blacks in Seattle more problematic than Asians in Vancouver?

Quote:
And do you concede that consequently those who attack someone for simply stating that fact, or go further and imply a racist motivation for the statement, are being ignorant in the former case and quite possibly a jerk in the latter?
I'm not convinced it is a fact, or at least not in the bald sense that "more diversity = more violence" in and of itself. Until such time as that happens, it looks more like an excuse to me, a convenient way to blame the problems on race (and avoiding the issue of guns) while trying to avoid seeming racist.
  #285  
Old 12-21-2018, 01:27 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Merely citing the words of the Constitution is not a legal argument.
The Constitution can be picked apart to make it meaningless if you want it to. But you're then arguing against the meaning and intent, an act which is inherently corrosive to the Constitution and to the Republic. Is that what you want?

If you had a way to say the Constitution did not actually define militias and their purpose according to its own words, then no doubt you would do so. But all you have is bluster and gesticulation, don't you?

To repeat,
  #286  
Old 12-21-2018, 02:00 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Try to assemble your own "people's militia" outside of government control, and I predict it'll get called one, and rather quickly, the moment you actually do something militia-like involving the bearing of arms. I daresay the moment you try to put this belief into action:

.
Actually there are quite a few private Militias around. I imagine a number are on a FBI watch list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_of_Montana
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...%80%93-its-not
https://www.facebook.com/californiastatemilitia/
http://texasmilitia.info/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immi...-mexico-border

But it is totally legal to organize a armed militia. It what you do with that militia that is the issue.

Last edited by DrDeth; 12-21-2018 at 02:01 PM.
  #287  
Old 12-21-2018, 02:02 PM
barbitu8 barbitu8 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Charleston, SC
Posts: 5,824
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Before Heller the Courts simply hadn't ruled on it. Per SCOTUS, you had the right to own a gun for personal defense all along. It wasn't until DC, Chicago and SF tried to ban the possession of all handguns and quite a bit else that the Courts had to rule on it.
Not so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia".
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."

That was mentioned in the dissenting opinion. Justice Scalia, a hunter and gun owner, wrote the majority decision.

It must be remembered that the Bill of Rights were enacted to protect the states' rights from the federal government. The Constitution would not have been ratified if those rights were not specified. They were restrictions on the federal government. "Congress shall..." The Heller case was against DC, a federal government. A subsequent case (against Chicago) extended it to the states, and their political subdivisions, too. This was by virtue of the 14th Amendment, which incorporated the Bill of Rights to the states, if such amendment. or a portion of the amendment, is consistent with the inherit rights of the individual. (This is sometimes referred to as "substantive due process." It must be noted that not all of the Bill of Rights applies to the state governments, as yet.
__________________
There are 10 kinds of people in this world: those who understand binary numbers and those who don't.

Last edited by barbitu8; 12-21-2018 at 02:03 PM.
  #288  
Old 12-21-2018, 02:14 PM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbitu8 View Post
Not so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia"......
Altho Heller did rule that the weapons had to be suitable for Militia use, it never ruled on whether or not you had the right to own a gun for personal defense. However, Militias are composed of men who supply their own weapons.
  #289  
Old 12-21-2018, 02:37 PM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
The militias have been the National Guard for over a century, and the taxpayers provide the Guard's weapons.

What you're describing are gangs.
  #290  
Old 12-21-2018, 02:43 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by barbitu8 View Post
Not so. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Miller "The Second Amendment protects only the ownership of military-type weapons appropriate for use in an organized militia." The Second Amendment, it was held, "must be interpreted and applied" with the view of maintaining a "militia".
The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia - civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion."

That was mentioned in the dissenting opinion. Justice Scalia, a hunter and gun owner, wrote the majority decision.
Miller was not the win that the dissent and the anti-gun people believe it was. They always get the case confused. It did not stand for the proposition that because Miller was not a member of a militia, that he could not own guns.

It held, that as there was no evidence presented to any court that a short barrelled shotgun was a weapon appropriate for militia use. Of course that is not surprising as Miller was dead and not even represented before the Court. So, Scalia argues (in part) that weapons which are suitable for militia purposes are protected, but then goes on to use the "commonly held by the people" test and the "dangerous and unusual" test and as I said above starts going off of the rails.

First, the weapon at issue, handguns, are IMHO very poorly suited for militia purposes. There is an old adage that when you know that there will be trouble, you carry a rifle; if you think that there might be trouble, you carry a pistol. A militia would be sent into troubled areas and like our frontline infantry would be carrying rifles and not pistols.

And then he argues that something like the M-16 rifle, one of the best types of weapons for a militia situation, is not protected, because he says that unlike handguns, M-16s are not in the common use.

What if different data showed that handguns were not in common use in Washington in 2008 because they had been banned for 32 years? An analysis was not done to see if:

1) Such a ban was constitutional and
2) The weapons would be in common use but for the unconstitutional ban.

The Court has held in other contexts that simply because something has been banned for a long period of time, like homosexual sodomy, abortion, or same sex marriage that is not the end of the analysis as to whether this long time ban was valid in the first place.
  #291  
Old 12-21-2018, 02:46 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Actually there are quite a few private Militias around. I imagine a number are on a FBI watch list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_of_Montana
https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/...%80%93-its-not
https://www.facebook.com/californiastatemilitia/
http://texasmilitia.info/
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/immi...-mexico-border

But it is totally legal to organize a armed militia. It what you do with that militia that is the issue.
And I hope they continue to stay somewhat-comically benign. They're certainly free to call themselves militias, but as soon as they start doing actual militia-type stuff like getting into battles, I don't predict the constitution will give them much cover.
  #292  
Old 12-21-2018, 03:05 PM
UltraVires UltraVires is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Bridgeport, WV, US
Posts: 14,505
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The militias have been the National Guard for over a century, and the taxpayers provide the Guard's weapons.

What you're describing are gangs.
First point: The National Guard is only a part of the militia under the law. We still have the unorganized militia.

Second point: In any event, the government cannot remove a right, like forming a citizen militia, by legislating it out of existence.

If the government enacted the Department of the Free Press that acted like TASS, controlled all media distribution (or alternatively, actually did quite a good job), and declared that private journalism was an anachronism, and indeed dangerous because of heated rhetoric and people publishing lies, would you or anyone seriously suggest that would be an acceptable substitute for a free press?

But that is exactly what you are doing with this issue. You are saying that We the People just cannot be trusted to form citizen militias, with the underlying requirement of owning and carrying arms, because we will just do stupid things.

You argue the point by setting up a strawman that my point suggests that the government would be powerless to stop insurrection or to stop any random five drunken idiots from walking down the street with M-16s and terrorizing the population by calling itself a militia. It can say that those five guys cannot carry and RPG because that is not a standard militia weapon. See Miller. You can say that two of those guys are convicted felons and that their character is such that they are unfit for militia service. See Heller. You can also say that they cannot drill or even carry any weapon at all in a school because of time, place, manner restrictions that are reasoned to the purpose and not a pretext to banning the right, as opposed to a regulation like you cannot carry a gun anywhere at all except maybe your own home.

As I said before, the militia clause, like any of the other enumerated rights in the BOR allow for reasonable regulation, except that regulation that is a pretext and designed to strike at or hamper the right itself.

The government can say that a newspaper must have a local business license, or it must pay taxes that other businesses pay. It can say that you have to have fire sprinklers installed in the building. It can say that if you are a blogger who publishes good stories but only does it as a hobby, then you do not get to write off business losses like the New York Times does.

It can say that a church, for example, is not five drunken idiots who worship a dog and they do not qualify for a tax exemption.

But the regulations you propose strike at the right itself. You could not say that only people with a high school degree can speak because any other speech could result from poor education and be dangerous. You cannot require four years of journalist school in order to publish a newspaper or a blog.
  #293  
Old 12-21-2018, 06:31 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Well, first we have to settle on a null hypothesis. Are Canadian cities less violent? I assume this was pretty much given. Are Canadian cities less diverse? I don't know. Are Canadian cities less violent because they are less diverse (assuming they are)? If someone knows of a study along those lines, I'd like to see it.



Well, when I made the proposal, I stated clearly I was open to discussing other factors anyone might suggest were relevant. So... got a suggestion? I could picture trying to control for weather, i.e. are colder cities less violent, in the sense of only looking at crime statistics for the months of May to October, for example.



Indeed, it is a complex topic, hence my reluctance to just buy into a pat "we're less homogeneous, hence more violent" explanation. There are place a lot more diverse that are less violent, and it's unclear to me that "diversity" plays much of a role in, say, school shootings.


Well, no, that would be something I'd want to see evidence for. Further, we'd have to establish some kind of control for:

Society A: Ethnic Group 1 and Ethnic Group 2 make up the population of a city and violence occurs as a result of mere proximity.

vs.

Society B: EG1 and EG2 make up the population of a city and most of the wealth and all of the laws are controlled by members of EG1, who operate on a tacit or open policy of denying access to EG2, keeping them poor and powerless. Violence occurs as a result of enforcing this control, fighting against it and struggling to survive under it.

Further still, are we going to start identifying specific ethnic/racial groups that especially don't play well with others? Are blacks in Seattle more problematic than Asians in Vancouver?



I'm not convinced it is a fact, or at least not in the bald sense that "more diversity = more violence" in and of itself. Until such time as that happens, it looks more like an excuse to me, a convenient way to blame the problems on race (and avoiding the issue of guns) while trying to avoid seeming racist.
Like I said, there are actual criminologists and other social scientists who are continually performing research like the study you propose. Their work produces useful data and credible evidence of their hypotheses. So why don't you see if this hasn't already been researched by someone with the appropriate academic credentials and post that information?

And I never stated that a heterogeneous population is the sole factor in determining the cause of increased conflict and crime victimization within a population group or when comparing two or more such population groups. What I said was there is a known strong correlation between a more heterogeneous population and an increase in conflict and crime victimization. And I gave three examples of actual academic cites for that fact, and there's a lot more out there. So that rebuts your statement in post #209 that it is a "handy thing" to blame differences in crime victimization rates on, since such a strong correlation can hardly be dismissed so easily. It is certainly not the only factor, or necessarily the most causative one, but it in all likelihood plays some role. The extent and degree of its effects is the kind of question answered by actual social scientists conducting actual academic research.

So when you accuse others of citing a more heterogeneous population as a cause of increased crime to avoid talking about guns you may be correct. They are likely correct that it has some effect but they may be too easily dismissing other factors, in this case guns and gun control laws. But when you yourself so readily dismiss a factor which is both well-known and such strongly correlated with increased crime you are doing the exact same thing.
  #294  
Old 12-21-2018, 06:49 PM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The Constitution can be picked apart to make it meaningless if you want it to. But you're then arguing against the meaning and intent, an act which is inherently corrosive to the Constitution and to the Republic. Is that what you want?

If you had a way to say the Constitution did not actually define militias and their purpose according to its own words, then no doubt you would do so. But all you have is bluster and gesticulation, don't you?

To repeat,
You really don't see the difference between the Constitution being "picked apart" by actual judges and legal scholars as opposed to random laypersons on the internet do you? And I've provided actual credible cites in support of my view of the intent and meaning of the 2nd Amendment. Quotes from respected Constitutional scholars dating back to 1803, within 15 years of ratification. If you'll remember, I chose cites from that time period to disprove your other false claim about the NRA rewriting history.

You, on the other hand, have provided exactly zero evidence for your position beyond your opinion, that of a layperson with no relevant credentials and an obvious lack of relevant knowledge. So I'll add "bluster", "gesticulation" , "cites", "evidence", and "irony" to the growing list of things you don't seem to understand.
  #295  
Old 12-21-2018, 11:54 PM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
Like I said, there are actual criminologists and other social scientists who are continually performing research like the study you propose. Their work produces useful data and credible evidence of their hypotheses. So why don't you see if this hasn't already been researched by someone with the appropriate academic credentials and post that information?

And I never stated that a heterogeneous population is the sole factor in determining the cause of increased conflict and crime victimization within a population group or when comparing two or more such population groups. What I said was there is a known strong correlation between a more heterogeneous population and an increase in conflict and crime victimization. And I gave three examples of actual academic cites for that fact, and there's a lot more out there. So that rebuts your statement in post #209 that it is a "handy thing" to blame differences in crime victimization rates on, since such a strong correlation can hardly be dismissed so easily. It is certainly not the only factor, or necessarily the most causative one, but it in all likelihood plays some role. The extent and degree of its effects is the kind of question answered by actual social scientists conducting actual academic research.

So when you accuse others of citing a more heterogeneous population as a cause of increased crime to avoid talking about guns you may be correct. They are likely correct that it has some effect but they may be too easily dismissing other factors, in this case guns and gun control laws. But when you yourself so readily dismiss a factor which is both well-known and such strongly correlated with increased crime you are doing the exact same thing.
Yeah... you're saying it's well-known, and I can certainly buy that it's widely believed but your cites don't have links and one of them is from segregation-era 1938, so I'll decline to accept the assertion for the moment. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that diversity plays "some role", Canadian cities are simply not that homogeneous. Regarding my own home city, if a wiki cite is acceptable; "Some 26% of the population of Montreal and 16.5% that of Greater Montreal, are members of a visible minority (non-white) group." And the source for that also reports that Montreal has (or at least had in 2006) just the third largest visible-minority urban population, after Toronto and Vancouver. However "homogeneous" is being defined, it sure doesn't seem to apply to those three cities at least, and these are not sleepy little towns. Vancouver barely misses the cut for largest 30 cities in Canada and the U.S. I cited earlier, but Toronto and Montreal are #3 and #6.

If it turns out that "diversity" plays some role but access to guns plays a much larger role in predicting incidence of violent crime, will you follow the advice DrDeth kindly offered in post 261 regarding Problem Prioritization and "really shut up" about diversity?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #296  
Old 12-22-2018, 12:06 AM
DrDeth DrDeth is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 38,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post

If it turns out that "diversity" plays some role but access to guns plays a much larger role in predicting incidence of violent crime, will you follow the advice DrDeth kindly offered in post 261 regarding Problem Prioritization and "really shut up" about diversity?
Access to gun certainly isn't a major issue for predicting incidence of violent crime.
  #297  
Old 12-22-2018, 12:19 AM
Bryan Ekers's Avatar
Bryan Ekers Bryan Ekers is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Montreal, QC
Posts: 58,247
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrDeth View Post
Access to gun certainly isn't a major issue for predicting incidence of violent crime.
Okay, so we could theoretically take that as a null hypothesis and compare major North American cities for violence levels and gun-access levels. Will the top thirty cities listed earlier be a sufficient sample size?
__________________
Don't worry about the end of Inception. We have top men working on it right now. Top. Men.
  #298  
Old 12-22-2018, 04:28 AM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 2,267
Quote:
Originally Posted by UltraVires View Post
The argument is that we are just being silly that NOBODY wants to take your guns. Your side in this thread and others suggest otherwise. Are you disputing that?
You keep saying "your side" as if I'm 100% with Cheesesteak, as is everyone that wants any regulation of firearms at all, in an attempt to portray anyone that wants any sort of increased firearm safety as gungrabbing crazies that will stop at nothing until the police are busting down gun owners doors to seize their weapons, opening fire on anyone that so much as asks for a warrant. I'm just pointing out that is a ridiculous assumption, as it would be should I assume you like to grab 'em by the pussy like Trump.
  #299  
Old 12-22-2018, 06:56 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 48,504
DirkHrdly: Yeah, I didn't think you could.

Wanna join UltraVires in his Pit thread? You're headed that way.
  #300  
Old 12-22-2018, 11:15 AM
DirkHardly DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 40
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bryan Ekers View Post
Yeah... you're saying it's well-known, and I can certainly buy that it's widely believed but your cites don't have links and one of them is from segregation-era 1938, so I'll decline to accept the assertion for the moment. Even if I grant for the sake of argument that diversity plays "some role", Canadian cities are simply not that homogeneous. Regarding my own home city, if a wiki cite is acceptable; "Some 26% of the population of Montreal and 16.5% that of Greater Montreal, are members of a visible minority (non-white) group." And the source for that also reports that Montreal has (or at least had in 2006) just the third largest visible-minority urban population, after Toronto and Vancouver. However "homogeneous" is being defined, it sure doesn't seem to apply to those three cities at least, and these are not sleepy little towns. Vancouver barely misses the cut for largest 30 cities in Canada and the U.S. I cited earlier, but Toronto and Montreal are #3 and #6.

If it turns out that "diversity" plays some role but access to guns plays a much larger role in predicting incidence of violent crime, will you follow the advice DrDeth kindly offered in post 261 regarding Problem Prioritization and "really shut up" about diversity?
But I'm not just saying it, I provided actual academic cites. I spent all of a few seconds Googling "heterogeneous", "conflict", and "crime" in a single search that brought up those cites and quite a few others. Seems like you could've spent a few seconds doing the same, either before you ever first posted doubting its existence or in all the time since. Or cut and pasted the titles of those articles into Google. In fact, kinda feels like if you really care about the issue or engaging in real debate that sort of minimal effort would be a good idea. And dismissing a cite based entirely on its publication date without knowing anything about it's actual content? Wow. Just wow.

I mean the mission of this board is "Fighting Ignorance" right? And this is "Great Debates"? Because that's how both of those things work. So here's your links, but you'll still have to actually read them. Because once again...

https://scholar.harvard.edu/sampson/...uality-and-het

This second one is a PDF download.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...eP73n8gCfeqEv_

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?...=1;skin=mobile
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:41 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017