| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2014 9:41 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| mac wrote: | Absolutely true in most respects CB. It is like dishonest statistician working for the Koch's. If you lump together fundamentally different populations--e.g. urban cultures and rural cultures--you will obscure whatever the data might tell you. Perhaps that is sometimes the intent. You cannot ignore the cultural factors--the United States' culture is much more violent, and hee-hah in nature than that of Canada and Australia.
I disagree about domestic violence, one of the leading murder categories, and one where the rural trends are just as strong. The requirement of some screening process entailing a wait would reduce impulse murders and suicides. |
I have always supported waiting periods on gun purchases. No one really needs to buy a gun, for any reason, in a limited time. If a threat is real, and legitimate, that a gun is needed, there are other short term ways to get away from that threat.
Sadly, guns are not the only way some dkhead can kill or maim his wife. As I mentioned before, a local woman was killed by her husband in my town of 500. Probably with a broken beer bottle...not a knife as earlier reported.
Suicides are much more complicated. Because of the ability of guns to assist in acting on impulse, limiting access to guns may have merit. But, this needs to be in concert with, actually, having treatment options available. Those treatment options are not always available in rural America. Untreated mental illness may likely result in suicide at a later date using other methods. You need to have both limited access to methods and better access to treatment. Which is what Australia did. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 5:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | O.K. Technically, not an an exaggeration. But, you cited gun confiscation as the reason for the drops in murders in Australia while violent crime (murders) dropped dramatically in the same period in other places (Minnesota...the only place I looked cause I was trying to replicated Canada). So, I find it cherry picking the data without looking at ALL of the reasons. |
I provided quantitative data and a citation of reduced gun murders in Australia that correlates with their implementation of gun control regulations.
You provide nothing but an assertion that something else might have caused this coincidental correlation.
OK, so what caused it? It's your turn to provide something credible, something quantitative, something logical.
And if you point to a drop in gun murders in Minnesota as the reason for a coincident drop in Australia, then why does Australia correlate with Minnesota? What's the connection? Are you saying that the rain in China was explained by the rain in Brazil?
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
coboardhead
Joined: 26 Oct 2009
Posts: 4303
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Not so quick Pueno! All I am saying is that just because gun deaths dropped in Australia does not mean that gun confiscation was responsible for the entire improvement. You draw a conclusion based on a trend and ask me to disprove it? Great.
Of course I cannot prove the extent that gun confiscation was effective. That is my point...neither did you. Over the same time period Australia implemented a program to provide better access to mental health services. And, most other places in developed countries saw violence decline in the same time period. But, maybe you're right...it was ALL about Australia's gun control.
Your tossing this statistic about in a discussion on guns in the US and implying that Australia's gun ban, that MAY have been responsible, is something we should consider. My point is that what works in Australia or Canada may not work here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
KGB-NP
Joined: 25 Jul 2001
Posts: 2856
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 5:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | | My point is that what works in Australia or Canada may not work here. |
Why not? You'll never know unless you try, or even want to try. The NRA is making sure that nothing changes, and not for the better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 5:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| coboardhead wrote: | Not so quick Pueno! All I am saying is that just because gun deaths dropped in Australia does not mean that gun confiscation was responsible for the entire improvement. You draw a conclusion based on a trend and ask me to disprove it? Great.
Of course I cannot prove the extent that gun confiscation was effective. That is my point...neither did you. Over the same time period Australia implemented a program to provide better access to mental health services. And, most other places in developed countries saw violence decline in the same time period. But, maybe you're right...it was ALL about Australia's gun control.
Your tossing this statistic about in a discussion on guns in the US and implying that Australia's gun ban, that MAY have been responsible, is something we should consider. My point is that what works in Australia or Canada may not work here. |
OK, sooooo............
You claim that reducing the number of guns may NOT have have caused a reduction in number of gun murders, even though they correlate.
Probably the placebo effect, eh?
And what works in Australia may NOT work here....... right?
Maybe because they drive on the other side of the road? Or perhaps the Coriolis Effect? Or because they're naturally happy, carefree people (except when they're not)? Because they speak funny English? Drink strange beer?
What, then? Give some data, cite a credible source. (Mr. Fick-shun is not a credible source.)
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
isobars
Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 20935
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| reinerehlers wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | My point is that what works in Australia or Canada may not work here. |
Why not? You'll never know unless you try, or even want to try. The NRA is making sure that nothing changes, and not for the better. |
Please explain how unilateral disarmament of the good guys, whether it's the U.S. nuclear arsenal or citizens' personal weapons, makes ANY sense whatsoever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uwindsurf
Joined: 18 Aug 2012
Posts: 968
Location: Classified
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 10:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | reinerehlers wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | My point is that what works in Australia or Canada may not work here. |
Why not? You'll never know unless you try, or even want to try. The NRA is making sure that nothing changes, and not for the better. |
Please explain how unilateral disarmament of the good guys, whether it's the U.S. nuclear arsenal or citizens' personal weapons, makes ANY sense whatsoever. |
awg |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nw30
Joined: 21 Dec 2008
Posts: 6485
Location: The eye of the universe, Cen. Cal. coast
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 11:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| isobars wrote: | | reinerehlers wrote: | | coboardhead wrote: | | My point is that what works in Australia or Canada may not work here. |
Why not? You'll never know unless you try, or even want to try. The NRA is making sure that nothing changes, and not for the better. |
Please explain how unilateral disarmament of the good guys, whether it's the U.S. nuclear arsenal or citizens' personal weapons, makes ANY sense whatsoever. |
He can't
~~~~~~~~~~
Doctor shoots patient who shot, killed woman at Pennsylvania hospital
By Kisa Mlela Santiago and Shelby Lin Erdman, CNN
updated 1:32 PM EDT, Fri July 25, 2014
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/25/us/pennsylvania-hospital-shooting/index.html
~~~~~~~~~~
There's no telling how many more people could have been shot and/or killed if it wasn't for that doctor who had one of those evil guns. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pueno
Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2807
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nitwit30 wrote: |
There's no telling how many more people could have been shot and/or killed if it wasn't for that doctor who had one of those evil guns. |
Just imagine -- if Doc had two guns, he coulda killed her twice, Lone Ranger style.
. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mac
Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 17747
Location: Berkeley, California
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2014 12:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is what passes for deep thought in right wing America. Because every now and then, a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun, we accept the tens of thousands of deaths each year. 55,000 since the Newtown shootings.
It is no accident that this screeching comes from people who don't understand the difference between trends and anecdotes. It comes as no surprise that most of the proposals by Obama, of screening and closing the gun show loophole, would not have prevented this doctor from owning a gun.
You heard it heard from the fact-shy, paranoid world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
|
Search
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Register
