Good info on mass shootings discrepancies

[Odd Job]

You can't say it without attracting flak, because it is not politically correct. It is not a palatable morsel to those who should be ingesting it.

 

[X-Rap]

It seems gun violence is an environmental and behavioral issue and the racial component comes from who populates that environment and has adopted those behaviors. Racist social engineering has centralized the blacks and encouraged and subsidized bad behavior and nothing will change do long as these conditions remain.

 

[Paleocon]

Sam1911,

Knowledge is always useful, even if it is disturbing. I'm a new member, but I doubt anyone here would propose using race as a basis for gun control. In fact, I think one could argue that the progressives have acted on these data in a racist manner: Americans of non-European ancestry commit gun crimes at a much higher rate; thus, to be racially fair we need to ban everyone from having guns.

I think we can safely assume that the majority of gun murders committed by non-Europeans were performed with guns that are possessed illegally. This seems to me to be decent proof that banning guns does not work well. We need stricter enforcement -- John Lott has shown that high arrest rates and stiff sentencing do reduce the rate of violent crime. Shall-issue concealed carry also reduces the rate of violent crime. He points out that law-abiding residents of high crime urban areas would benefit most from concealed carry permits. I'm all for that, but progressive state and city governments typically do their best to deny carry permits to such people, by making the permitting process onerous or expensive.

Illinois recently was forced to allow carry. Assume a respectable carry gun costs $500. In Illinois the cost of a permit, including the training, is the cost of the cost of a respectable handgun. That's going to prevent many law-abiding inner city residents from applying for a carry permit, especially if you are on a Hi-Point budget. The federal gun control act of 1968 effectively banned the importation of affordable carry pistols, which also drove costs up.

Progressive politicians know the statistics, and they have done all they can think of to keep guns out of the hands of urban Blacks and Hispanics. It hasn't worked. What about a private sector program to recruit law-abiding urban minorities and arm them and pay for their carry license training? Odds are the result will be a reduction in violent crime and the removal of some criminals from the streets.

 

[Paleocon]

[QUOTE="Sam1911, post: 10415731, member: 54752"But how, in our world and specifically the USA trying so hard to be "post-racial" or at least sort of color-blind, how do we use data that says "young, poor, urban, black men commit the majority of our violent crimes" as a tool to undo or deflect gun control measures?[/QUOTE]

Turn it around. In light of the evidence, how do the antis justify infringing on everyone's gun rights? They can't, not logically or morally.

Speaking of morality, the Left always tries to claim the moral high ground, but academic studies show that, relative to those on the Right, Leftists inhabit the shallow and narrow end of the morality pool. The most prominent researcher is Jonathan Haidt, a social psychologist at NYU. He has identified five forms of morality:

- care (preventing harm)
- fairness (preventing cheating)
- authority (preventing subversion)
- ingroup (aka loyality -- preventing betrayal)
- purity (preventing degradation).

The following graph shows that conservatives tend, on average, to operate on all five of these channels, while liberals operate on only two.

This knowledge can be used by labeling anti arguments what they are: immoral. Taking a critical tool away from a person is fundamentally inhumane.

 

[Sam1911]

I'm afraid I have nothing to go on there with that chart to support the conclusion that is claimed, nor that the theory, even it is accepted as completely true, proves anything useful and helps stave off gun control legislation.

I wouldn't say that I'm hugely invested in loyalty to an in group nor in preventing subversion of authority but does that help me or hurt me in my fight against gun control? Help me make the leaps here.

Usually I note that any statement which purports to say liberals are this and conservatives are that accomplishes little beyond yet more self congratulation (which we're already quite good at) and blinkered divisiveness.

 

[RX-79G]

You can't say it without attracting flak, because it is not politically correct. It is not a palatable morsel to those who should be ingesting it.

You deserve flak if you incorrectly observe that race correlates to violence. It doesn't.

As you can see in the stats I posted, violence correlates to poverty. White poor, black poor, same numbers.

What is politically incorrect about saying that impoverished people have poor health care, shorter lifespans, greater drug abuse and more violence? The most politically correct liberal in the world would agree with that statement.

Political incorrectness has more to do with ignoring the facts and fascinating on specious conclusions.



I agree with Sam that statistics have little to do with public perception of mass shootings. Per capita, we have fewer mass shooting victims than Sweden. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about their causes or prevention.

 

[Sam1911]

That's tricky ground to stand on though. Should we be concerned about the causes and prevention of exceptionally rare negative events? That depends on a couple of factors.

1) Do we have the mental and fiscal capital free to spend it on studying and solving that minute problem or are limited in what we can actually get done and so are we wasting time, money, and public inertia solving irrelevancies while we should be concentrating on more widespread and solvable issues?

2) alternately, is the public perception of the problem such that we must appear to be "doing something" in order to create the working space to further our broader ends?

 

[RX-79G]

That's tricky ground to stand on though. Should we be concerned about the causes and prevention of exceptionally rare negative events? That depends on a couple of factors.

1). Do we have the mental and fiscal capital free to spend it on studying and solving that problem or are we wasting time, money, and public inertia solving irrelevancies while we should be concentrating on more widespread and solvable issues?

2) alternately, is the public perception of the problem such that we must appear to be "doing something" in order to create the working space to further our broader ends?

It's tricky, but I didn't mean to suggest that prevention at any cost is a solution. It is more a question of whether certain things should be done to account for certain categories of problems, and then being open and honest about the statistical likelihood of all the incidents we can't prevent. It needs to be demystified and then accepted as just another of the many dangers of living in a society with other people, not as some new and unlikely trend.

If the news started to report how many deaths there were from falling off ladders, everyone would be up in arms about that. But falling deaths have always been high, so it isn't reported as the pandemic it actually is.

 

[Paleocon]

I'm afraid I have nothing to go on there with that chart to support the conclusion that is claimed, nor that the theory, even it is accepted as completely true, proves anything useful and helps stave off gun control legislation.

I wouldn't say that I'm hugely invested in loyalty to an in group nor in preventing subversion of authority but does that help me or hurt me in my fight against gun control? Help me make the leaps here.

Usually I note that any statement which purports to say liberals are this and conservatives are that accomplishes little beyond yet more self congratulation (which we're already quite good at) and blinkered divisiveness.

You can learn more about Moral Foundations Theory here:

http://moralfoundations.org

or here:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_foundations_theory.

An internet search should yield some pdfs of articles Haidt has published, or at least abstracts of such articles.

The point of me introducing Moral Foundations Theory into this discussion is to point out that antis, who come from the Left, are likely to be morally shallow and narrow; thus, their argumentation is almost certain to be morally flawed. We need to point this out, present a morally acceptable counterargument, and reclaim the moral high ground our Framers held on the subject. Suggesting that any law abiding citizen should be deprived of an effective means of self defense is fundamentally inhumane.

Regarding ingroup loyalty, that can manifest at various levels; eg, family, neighborhood, team, political party, nation, race, religion, etc. My guess is that you have loyalty invested in at least some group. Most of us are highly invested in our family. Taking away my firearms reduces my ability to defend my family, as well as members of my neighborhood.

I am not trying to be divisive, just pointing out scientific findings that tell us that liberals and conservatives tend to differ significantly in the area of morality, that, because of this, one can expect many liberal arguments, including their arguments for gun control, to be morally weak. We should be able to find ways to exploit their immoral arguments.

 

[RX-79G]

The point of me introducing Moral Foundations Theory into this discussion is to point out that antis, who come from the Left, are likely to be morally shallow and narrow; thus, their argumentation is almost certain to be morally flawed.

Frankly, this is just plain old ad hominem. Someone builds a ridiculous and unscientific social theory about people they don't know so you can undermine their position without actually having to argue anything cogent yourself.

Fascists love doing this to any inconvenient population.

 

[Paleocon]

You deserve flak if you incorrectly observe that race correlates to violence. It doesn't.

As you can see in the stats I posted, violence correlates to poverty. White poor, black poor, same numbers.

Yes, there is a positive, albeit weak, correlation between poverty and crime, but there is a strong positive correlation between racial demography and crime:

In fact, racial demography explains five times as much as does the poverty rate. The single explanation for differences seen in all three plots above is likely the difference in IQ:

SAT score is strongly and positively correlated with IQ. As one can see, average Black verbal (V) scores from the wealthiest homes are equal to the average White verbal scores from the poorest homes. Average Black math (M) scores from the wealthiest homes are less than those from the poorest White and Asian scores.

The average IQ of Black Americans is 85, a standard deviation below that of the average White American IQ of 100. Violent crime rates peak at IQs between 80 and 90.

Not politically correct, but true. But, we should not be basing policies on political correctness.

 

[Paleocon]

Frankly, this is just plain old ad hominem. Someone builds a ridiculous and unscientific social theory about people they don't know so you can undermine their position without actually having to argue anything cogent yourself.

Fascists love doing this to any inconvenient population.

I gave you links to two websites that describe Haidt's Moral Foundations Theory. You might want to read them before commenting further.

I offered no ad hominem, but you certainly did by implying I'm using fascist methods. Haidt, by the way, is a liberal Jew, not that has or should have anything to do with his science; but, I'm guessing this means he's not a card-carrying fascist.

 

[RX-79G]

And then you followed that up with specious "correlation" data published by a the racial separatism New Century Foundation.

Meanwhile, the US Bureau of Justice offers this very simple statistic:
Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).


Yes, I think fascist organizations love to use crap science to "prove" that certain races are "unfit", and you are certainly riding those coattails. Perhaps you can offer some stats provided by the Klan, Phineas Priesthood or Volksfront to rebut me. I don't know if the Aryan Nation does stats, but I've heard they publish a great cookbook.

 

[Paleocon]

And then you followed that up with specious "correlation" data published by a the racial separatism New Century Foundation.

Wow! The man who accused me of using an ad hominem uses yet another ad hominem. Social justice warriors always project.

Meanwhile, the US Bureau of Justice offers this very simple statistic:
Poor urban blacks (51.3 per 1,000) had rates of violence similar to poor urban whites (56.4 per 1,000).

I acknowledged a positive correlation between poverty and crime. The FBI data, which the New Century Foundation used, shows that racial demography is positively correlated with crime to a degree five times stronger than poverty. John Lott, in his More Guns Less Crime, also conducted his analyses on FBI data and arrived at a similar conclusion. I'm sorry that facts do not comport with your science denial, but adults operate on evidence and reason, not wishful fantasies of cultural Marxism.

Yes, I think fascist organizations love to use crap science to "prove" that certain races are "unfit", and you are certainly riding those coattails. Perhaps you can offer some stats provided by the Klan, Phineas Priesthood or Volksfront to rebut me. I don't know if the Aryan Nation does stats, but I've heard they publish a great cookbook.

Tripling down on your ad hominems and science denial. SJWs always double down. Thank you for your admission that you have no evidence or reasoned argument to counter my contributions. Playing the fascist/racist card is the last resort of the vacuous progressive.

 

[RX-79G]

I did read your Moral Foundations stuff. No part of that theory indicates that liberals are "morally shallow and narrow". That was the ad hominem - and it is out of right field. Did you get that from some sort of literal translation of a Ven diagram? You got it wrong.

Then you backed up that bit of fiction by quoting something published by racists. I don't have to be a Social Justice anything to understand that the motivations of racists never comes down to more than just their racism. Why would anyone with a brain agree with that sort of loathsome life philosophy?

This is a gun forum. Make your pro-hate argument somewhere else.

 

[Sam1911]

The point of me introducing Moral Foundations Theory into this discussion is to point out that antis, who come from the Left, are likely to be morally shallow and narrow; thus, their argumentation is almost certain to be morally flawed.

I really don't see any useful point in proceeding with any line of persuasion that stands on calling (even "proving" through applying a social theory) the opposing side "morally flawed." In fact, through a cursory read-over of Moral Foundations Theory, I don't see where the theorists themselves are even claiming a value judgment of that sort. They've merely developed a theory which is a tool to describe the different ways peoples arrive at their own innate senses of morality. You, yourself, seem to be reading the theory and coming to the conclusion that someone who applies these aspects over those in developing a morality are unbalanced or flawed. And that opinion is not really worth more than the paper it is(n't) printed on.

Pragmatic activism must stand on effective tools of persuasion. And simply put, calling the opposing side morally flawed is not persuasive, nor effective. In fact, it's chief effect seems to be in walling one's self off from any effective dialog or understanding, and thus from reaching the other side and persuading them of anything.

 

[Sam1911]

And, you both need to knock off the name calling. Fascist? Racist? SJW? Don't use those words here again.

They're absurd caricatures of the other person and their positions, and if you want to be taken seriously (or to continue posting here, ahem...) find more erudite and accurate and cogent ways of expressing your points.

 

[HOWARD J]

I don't need stats.
I lived & worked on & off for 61 years-mostly on in Detriot

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Correlation is not causation and John Lott did not cite the correlation as a cause.

Concerning John Lott's "More Guns Less Crime" thesis, you can find the criticism that Lott attributed crime to middle aged black women, citing Hemenway 1998, Zimring & Hawkins 1997, Alschuler 1997 and Ludwig 1996 as sources.

Jens Ludwig, "Do Permissive Concealed-Carry Laws Reduce Violent Crime?" unpublished draft dated Oct. 8, 1996, on file with Albert Alschuler. Ludwig noted a correlation between PPBF4049 (percent of population black, female, aged 40 to 49) and high crime rates in the data used in the Lott & Mustard crime trends regressions.

Albert Alschuler, "Two Guns, Four Guns, Six Guns, More Guns: Does Arming the Public Reduce Crime?" Valparaiso U Law Rev. Spring 1997. Alschuler noted that while PPBM2029 (as perpetrators of crime) and PPBF64+ (as victims) are strongly correlated to high homicide rates in the dataset used by Lott & Mustard 1997, PPBF4049 is rated more highly as a predictor of homicide rate. (Alschuler noted that Lott supplied him with his copy of Ludwig's 1996 paper as well as the Lott & Mustard data.)

Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, "Concealed Handguns: The Counterfeit Deterrent", 7 The Responsive Community 2 (Spring 1997). "Both Albert Alschuler and Jens Ludwig note a number of problems in their separate papers. Why, for example, should the concentration of older black women in a population predict higher crime rates in the Lott and Mustard model, but not the increased concentration of young men, age 20 to 29, who are vastly more likely to commit such offenses?"

David Hemenway, "Review of More Guns, Less Crime: Understanding Crime and Gun-Control Laws", New England Journal of Medicine, 1998. Hemenway's review states: "Lott finds ... that reducing the number of black women 40 years old or older (who are rarely either perpetrators or victims of murder) substantially reduces murder rates. Indeed, according to Lott's results, getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or enacting shall-issue laws."

This is not four independent sources (as some antigunners imply): Hemenway 1998 citing Zimring & Hawkins 1997 citing Alschuler 1997 citing Ludwig 1996 devolves to one source, Ludwig 1996, who did not actually support what Hemenway 1998 implied. Lott did not say that getting rid of older black women will lead to a more dramatic reduction in homicide rates. (BTW Hemenway was in charge of that anti-gun study financed by Michael Bloomberg which was completed over a year ago but has yet to pass academic peer review.)

High PPBF4049 is an indicator of crime. The percentage of population Black, Female, Aged 40-49, is a demographic that is a good predictor of the presence of a large urban ghetto within a jurisdiction. PPBF4049 is found as a correlation, but is not cited in Lott & Mustard 1997 as a causation. It is used as a variable to allow comparison of effect of law changes on crime rate across demographically diverse jurisdictions (ghetto conditions are causative of crime).

The sociological variable of PPBF4049 percentage of population black, female,ages 40-49 years, is an indicator of a high crime rate in cities but is not a cause. Not that middle age black women are disproportionately perpetrators of victims of urban crime, but because PPBF4049 strongly correlates to the presence of a black ghettoes in an American city and urban black ghettoes are rife with poverty, unemployment, lack of education, broken homes, dependancy on social services.

In urban ghettos, race is strongly correlated to factors of unemployment, lack of education, sons in fatherless homes, dependancy on social services, etc, which are causative factors regardless of race, black or white. By the MOM rule, a criminal has to have motive and opportunity to use a means. The means is not a causative factor, especially when there are substitutes. Motive and opportunity are much more important.

I grew in the 1950s and 1960s in a white neighborhood settled by people who came to the city in the 1930s and 1940s from the mountain farms and coalfields seeking industrial jobs. Growing up I saw crime associated with poverty, unemployment, lack of education, broken homes, dependancy on social services. I also saw a lot of crime associated with the local option prohibition of alcohol 1953-1968. I was five to twenty in that era. There was rampant bootlegging and associated crime especially in the poorer parts of town white and black. Around 1959 on, there was a crusade to ban handguns. The ban-the-pistol rhetoric echoed the ban-alcohol rhetoric. Since bootleggers were also places to buy pistols, banning legal handguns at sportinggoods stores struck me as idiotic. Repeal efforts in 1967-68 were met with wails from the dry forces that legalized alcohol would unleash demon rum and the streets would flow with blood. (When did I hear that streets flowing with blood rhetoric? Oh, it was when shall-issue carry state permits replaced discretionary county permits.)