Political Roundtable - Part VII

[Zonkerbl]

And maybe the historic election and re-election of a country's first black president had an effect. Black turnout has been way lower than white in every election until the last two.

But by a considerably smaller margin than what one would expect based on age/education/income differences. The point is, blacks are the most organized and energetic voting base in the country. They vote. A lot. It's really hard to look at the numbers and conclude that the U.S. is systematically keeping the black vote down.

Let's review:

• Wizardspride posted an article implying that Alabama was intentionally suppressing the black vote by closing DMV offices in black counties.
• I posted that they weren't closing DMV offices in black counties, they were closing them in low-population counties in a manner which appears to have impacted rural blacks and rural whites at about the same rate. This was not racist by design nor by end result.
• dobrojim responds by saying the facts don't matter. We all know Alabama Republicans are racists so they must be doing something racist down there.
• I respond by pointing out that dobrojim had no facts to support his assertion and that until he had facts. I have no reason to believe his theory that Alabama Republicans are evil racists who want to suppress the black vote.
• TSW chimes in with a mild jab at my credibility on the issue and then goes on to point out the difficulty that minorities have in voting because of voter ID laws.
• I respond that things must not be so difficult because blacks actually vote considerably more than whites of the same age, income class and educational achievement. Evil Whitey's attempt to keep the black man down is either non-existent, highly ineffective, or actively counter-productive.
• Montestewart calls it a strawman argument.

Far from being full of strawman arguments, I think my presence in this debate provided some critical information to the issue. Did anybody else point out that the DMV closings were in low population counties? I think not. I'm sure you all nodded your head in silent agreement that those evil Alabama Republicans are at it again. Did anyone else here know the voting numbers? That blacks voted more than whites in the last election and just as much as whites in the prior election? And that blacks vote way more than whites when adjusted for age and income?

It looks like my job here is to continue to challenge the Narrative. I'm going to keep posting facts to counter many of the emotional and unsupported assertions on race that keep getting thrown out here. I hope, maybe someday, it'll force some of you to reconsider what you think you know about some of these issues. So far, it hasn't seemed to have worked. When the data and facts contradict the assertions of this board (like crime data, or police shooting data, or the Michael Wilson forensic evidence), everyone chooses to ignore the data and continue to believe their unsupported dogma. It's probably a futile effort, but at least it's entertaining.

Nate, you are good at coming up with stats to support your arguments and people seem to think you're a smart guy.

Having said that, I have numerous times brought up stats or logical arguments to counter your so-called "stats" and you've brushed me off.

It's impossible to persuade you with facts. You don't listen. Why should we listen to you?

[nate33]

And maybe the historic election and re-election of a country's first black president had an effect. Black turnout has been way lower than white in every election until the last two.

But by a considerably smaller margin than what one would expect based on age/education/income differences. The point is, blacks are the most organized and energetic voting base in the country. They vote. A lot. It's really hard to look at the numbers and conclude that the U.S. is systematically keeping the black vote down.

Let's review:

• Wizardspride posted an article implying that Alabama was intentionally suppressing the black vote by closing DMV offices in black counties.
• I posted that they weren't closing DMV offices in black counties, they were closing them in low-population counties in a manner which appears to have impacted rural blacks and rural whites at about the same rate. This was not racist by design nor by end result.
• dobrojim responds by saying the facts don't matter. We all know Alabama Republicans are racists so they must be doing something racist down there.
• I respond by pointing out that dobrojim had no facts to support his assertion and that until he had facts. I have no reason to believe his theory that Alabama Republicans are evil racists who want to suppress the black vote.
• TSW chimes in with a mild jab at my credibility on the issue and then goes on to point out the difficulty that minorities have in voting because of voter ID laws.
• I respond that things must not be so difficult because blacks actually vote considerably more than whites of the same age, income class and educational achievement. Evil Whitey's attempt to keep the black man down is either non-existent, highly ineffective, or actively counter-productive.
• Montestewart calls it a strawman argument.

Far from being full of strawman arguments, I think my presence in this debate provided some critical information to the issue. Did anybody else point out that the DMV closings were in low population counties? I think not. I'm sure you all nodded your head in silent agreement that those evil Alabama Republicans are at it again. Did anyone else here know the voting numbers? That blacks voted more than whites in the last election and just as much as whites in the prior election? And that blacks vote way more than whites when adjusted for age and income?

It looks like my job here is to continue to challenge the Narrative. I'm going to keep posting facts to counter many of the emotional and unsupported assertions on race that keep getting thrown out here. I hope, maybe someday, it'll force some of you to reconsider what you think you know about some of these issues. So far, it hasn't seemed to have worked. When the data and facts contradict the assertions of this board (like crime data, or police shooting data, or the Michael Wilson forensic evidence), everyone chooses to ignore the data and continue to believe their unsupported dogma. It's probably a futile effort, but at least it's entertaining.

Nate, you are good at coming up with stats to support your arguments and people seem to think you're a smart guy.

Having said that, I have numerous times brought up stats or logical arguments to counter your so-called "stats" and you've brushed me off.

It's impossible to persuade you with facts. You don't listen. Why should we listen to you?

You keep saying you have countered me, but you haven't actually done so. Usually, you just descend into name-calling - particularly on issues involving gun control.

[dobrojim]

Gun control debate
Person A - gosh the level of violence is appalling. Something needs to be done.
Person B - nothing you can do will actually help the problem.

That's my personal recollection of how the talk has gone in the past.

My frustration with this is 2 fold -
1. as a country we're not afraid to address other problems even when critics say it won't help
(edit to add, well we used to address problems, not so much these days)

2. many of the proposed remedies are quite mild but are seen by opponents as the first step towards
certain and complete confiscation and therefore vehemently opposed.

Rational discussion has long since ceased to be possible.

[nate33]

Gun control debate
Person A - gosh the level of violence is appalling. Something needs to be done.
Person B - nothing you can do will actually help the problem.

That's my personal recollection of how the talk has gone in the past.

My frustration with this is 2 fold -
1. as a country we're not afraid to address other problems even when critics say it won't help
(edit to add, well we used to address problems, not so much these days)

2. many of the proposed remedies are quite mild but are seen by opponents as the first step towards
certain and complete confiscation and therefore vehemently opposed.

Rational discussion has long since ceased to be possible.

I experience similar frustration, dobrojim, but in a different direction. People see the mass shootings and understandably get very angry about it so they want to "Do Something". The problem is, they don't calmly examine their solutions to see if they would solve the problem. They just scream, "Guns are killing people and they must be stopped!"

Here's the problem with gun control as a solution in one simple graph:


The correlation with gun ownership and gun homicide is actually slightly negative. States with more legally owned guns actually do have less gun crime. The correlation is so small that it would perhaps be better to say that gun ownership appears to have no significant bearing whatsoever on gun crime.

We also have case studies like Washington DC and Chicago where guns are essentially forbidden and gun violence is disproportionately high. We also have the knowledge that most of these mass shootings are occurring in gun free zones like schools, movie theaters and colleges.

So I am very much open-minded about trying to solve this problem with mass shooting, but I'm not going to be receptive to gun control as the proposed solution until someone can show me statistically that gun control has worked in our society in the past. I get so sick and tired of politicians, media, and Hollywood turning every gun tragedy into a political attack on conservatives and the NRA. It's not rational analysis. It's pure emoting and it is completely counter-productive.

[dobrojim]

There is plenty of other data ie facts that argue the exact opposite. We're the only developed country
that has anything remotely resembling this kind of problem. As BHO deftly pointed out, if we look at
the number of deaths from gun violence relative to the number of deaths from terrorism, then compare
the amount of money spent protecting us from either one, no rational person would conclude anything
other than we are hugely misallocating resources to address a problem. (edit to add - BHO didn't talk
about how much money we spend addressing either problem, he just compared deaths from either
source. And he was probably wise in that choice).

[nate33]

There is plenty of other data ie facts that argue the exact opposite. We're the only developed country
that has anything remotely resembling this kind of problem. As BHO deftly pointed out, if we look at
the number of deaths from gun violence relative to the number of deaths from terrorism, then compare
the amount of money spent protecting us from either one, no rational person would conclude anything
other than we are hugely misallocating resources to address a problem.

Comparing us to other developed countries with different geographic and demographic environments is unconvincing. Most European nations have a much higher population density so facilitate easier policing. Guns for self defense isn't as necessary. There's also the demographic angle that I don't need to get into right now. Let's just say the people of European descent in our country commit violence at about the same rate as those in Europe.

I would like to see examples, in our country, where gun control measures have successfully thwarted violence. If that evidence existed, I would absolutely consider backing off my position. I'm sincere when I state that I'm open-minded about this. I want this violence to stop as much as anyone.

I'm curious about the terrorism analogy. Do you have a proposal that would divert efforts currently devoted to anti-terrorism efforts and instead apply them to gun violence? How would that work? Again, I'm open-minded.

[dobrojim]

Australia? Following a major incident they pass very restrictive laws and gun violence plummeted.
As far as urban-rural distribution, I'd guess Aus is a lot more like us than most european countries.

As far as distributing resources and proposing changes, first you have leave that famous river
in Egypt (Denial) and admit that you have a problem. The small but angry motivated minority
of people against gun laws think the answer is just that not enough people think like they do
and buy guns.

Meanwhile we can't even pass simple protections that would not present that large of an
obstacle to legal ownership that massive majorities, incl majorities of gun owners favor.
We can't actually say that none of these things would work because they have never been
accomplished in a meaningful way. You can talk about CHI/DC/Balt all you want but
all long as their laws are trivially bypassed, it really doesn't prove much of anything.

[nate33]

Australia? Following a major incident they pass very restrictive laws and gun violence plummeted.
As far as urban-rural distribution, I'd guess Aus is a lot more like us than most european countries.

As far as distributing resources and proposing changes, first you have leave that famous river
in Egypt (Denial) and admit that you have a problem. The small but angry motivated minority
of people against gun laws think the answer is just that not enough people think like they do
and buy guns.

Meanwhile we can't even pass simple protections that would not present that large of an
obstacle to legal ownership that massive majorities, incl majorities of gun owners favor.
We can't actually say that none of these things would work because they have never been
accomplished in a meaningful way. You can talk about CHI/DC/Balt all you want but
all long as their laws are trivially bypassed, it really doesn't prove much of anything.

I looked up the Australia numbers and I don't see any indication that gun control has done much. They instituted gun restrictions and a gun buyback program in 1996/97 in the midst of a long term downtrend of homicides that started in 1969. After the gun restrictions, there was a notable uptick in homicides followed by a continuation of the downward trend. Here is a graph:



What "simple protections" would you like to have passed?

[dckingsfan]

I am wondering what is causing our homicide rate to fall... what are we doing right and how can we do more of it?

Note: aged 10-24 years

[nate33]

ote: aged 10-24 years

So that's a chart of homicide rate perpetrated by individuals aged 10-24?

[dckingsfan]

ote: aged 10-24 years

So that's a chart of homicide rate perpetrated by individuals aged 10-24?

Correct... per 100,000, what is interesting is that we are slowly reducing our (overall) rates to the 4 per 100,000.

I think that part of the debate should be what has been the cause of this drop.

[nate33]

ote: aged 10-24 years

So that's a chart of homicide rate perpetrated by individuals aged 10-24?

Correct... per 100,000, what is interesting is that we are slowly reducing our rates to the 4 per 100,000.

I think that part of the debate should be what has been the cause of this drop.

That chart is actually somewhat depressing. Homicides are basically flat except for the crack epidemic in the 90's. Other charts I have seen show a generally declining homicide rate, but I guess that's mostly due to a generally increasing average age. Your chart eliminates age as a variable.

[fishercob]

Gun control debate
Person A - gosh the level of violence is appalling. Something needs to be done.
Person B - nothing you can do will actually help the problem.

That's my personal recollection of how the talk has gone in the past.

My frustration with this is 2 fold -
1. as a country we're not afraid to address other problems even when critics say it won't help
(edit to add, well we used to address problems, not so much these days)

2. many of the proposed remedies are quite mild but are seen by opponents as the first step towards
certain and complete confiscation and therefore vehemently opposed.

Rational discussion has long since ceased to be possible.

I experience similar frustration, dobrojim, but in a different direction. People see the mass shootings and understandably get very angry about it so they want to "Do Something". The problem is, they don't calmly examine their solutions to see if they would solve the problem. They just scream, "Guns are killing people and they must be stopped!"

Here's the problem with gun control as a solution in one simple graph:


The correlation with gun ownership and gun homicide is actually slightly negative. States with more legally owned guns actually do have less gun crime. The correlation is so small that it would perhaps be better to say that gun ownership appears to have no significant bearing whatsoever on gun crime.

We also have case studies like Washington DC and Chicago where guns are essentially forbidden and gun violence is disproportionately high. We also have the knowledge that most of these mass shootings are occurring in gun free zones like schools, movie theaters and colleges.

So I am very much open-minded about trying to solve this problem with mass shooting, but I'm not going to be receptive to gun control as the proposed solution until someone can show me statistically that gun control has worked in our society in the past. I get so sick and tired of politicians, media, and Hollywood turning every gun tragedy into a political attack on conservatives and the NRA. It's not rational analysis. It's pure emoting and it is completely counter-productive.

This is a simple graph, yes. But it's not at all illustrative of "the problem" of gun control, nor is it particularly illuminating in and of itself. Several questions:

Is this measuring gun ownership or legal gun ownership? If its the former, how reliable is the data and how do we know?
How do gun laws and enforcement thereof vary by state?
Couldn't it be that DC has a problem with the enforcement of its gun laws? COuld it be that DC has an ineffective police force? Could socio-economics play a role?
What accounts for the huge difference between Mississippi and Idaho's gun homicide rate when they have the same gun ownership rate?
Am I supposed to believe that low gun homicide rates in Montana, Idaho, the Dakotas and Wyoming is because gun ownership is high and not at all due to population density (or lack thereof)? Do you think if DC or New York had a 60% gun ownership rate that their homicide rate would drop to where Wyoming's is?


Also, do we think mass shootings are taking place in gun free zones because they are gun free zones, or because they are crowded and that's where mass killers go? What non-gun free zone are mass killers avoiding?

I'm with you nate. Let's do research, look at data, and make informed policy decisions based on that data. I read this week that Republicans in COngress -- at the NRA's urging -- have blocked measures to even study the issue and collect data. How is that going to make anything better?

[dobrojim]

it's that river in Egypt

denial of a real problem

denial that anything effective might be done about it

[TheSecretWeapon]

Gun control debate
Person A - gosh the level of violence is appalling. Something needs to be done.
Person B - nothing you can do will actually help the problem.

That's my personal recollection of how the talk has gone in the past.

My frustration with this is 2 fold -
1. as a country we're not afraid to address other problems even when critics say it won't help
(edit to add, well we used to address problems, not so much these days)

2. many of the proposed remedies are quite mild but are seen by opponents as the first step towards
certain and complete confiscation and therefore vehemently opposed.

Rational discussion has long since ceased to be possible.

I experience similar frustration, dobrojim, but in a different direction. People see the mass shootings and understandably get very angry about it so they want to "Do Something". The problem is, they don't calmly examine their solutions to see if they would solve the problem. They just scream, "Guns are killing people and they must be stopped!"

Here's the problem with gun control as a solution in one simple graph:


The correlation with gun ownership and gun homicide is actually slightly negative. States with more legally owned guns actually do have less gun crime. The correlation is so small that it would perhaps be better to say that gun ownership appears to have no significant bearing whatsoever on gun crime.

We also have case studies like Washington DC and Chicago where guns are essentially forbidden and gun violence is disproportionately high. We also have the knowledge that most of these mass shootings are occurring in gun free zones like schools, movie theaters and colleges.

So I am very much open-minded about trying to solve this problem with mass shooting, but I'm not going to be receptive to gun control as the proposed solution until someone can show me statistically that gun control has worked in our society in the past. I get so sick and tired of politicians, media, and Hollywood turning every gun tragedy into a political attack on conservatives and the NRA. It's not rational analysis. It's pure emoting and it is completely counter-productive.

This is one of those waste of time stats because the nation is awash with guns. There are already so many guns in the stream that correlating violence to gun ownership is meaningless. Guns can be illegally obtained without a ton of trouble. Guns can be legally obtained without much trouble.

I have no great idea where to start considering how many guns are already out there in private ownership -- legal and illegal. I'm tepidly in favor of making gun ownership akin to owning an automobile -- that is guns being registered (with annual renewal required), gun owners being licensed (complete with demonstrating proficiency before being issued a license), and owners being required to maintain insurance. It probably wouldn't do much to stop illegal trafficking in firearms, at least in the short term, but it might help a little.

[nate33]

Everybody tells me I'm in denial. Everyone tells me my numbers are meaningless. Okay then. What makes your pro gun control argument so compelling? Why do you think gun control will work? It made no dent in Australia. It had a deleterious effect in Britain.

This is so typical of this board. I post facts. Everyone else offers unsubstantiated opinions and then tells me I'm wrong. And it is all tainted with a hint of moral superiority. You guys don't even NEED to support your opinions because you're on the "right" side - the side in agreement with the New York Times et al. I'm just a brainwashed fool siding with the evil NRA. Why even debate me?

[TheSecretWeapon]

Meaningless "facts" are...well...meaningless. A correlation of crime rates and gun ownership rates doesn't mean anything for the reasons I identified in my last post.

As for why gun control might or might not work, I have no good idea. Any meaningful gun control would have to address guns already in private ownership (not just new purchases), and I don't see any feasible way of doing that. Unfortunately, I think there are already so many guns (and ammo) in the world that there's likely no piece of legislation or regulation that's going to reduce gun violence.

Probably the best bet for reducing mass shootings is going to be determining behavioral traits that can be used to identify likely shooters. Perhaps intervention when those behaviors manifest could prevent some shootings.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[bsilver]

Everybody tells me I'm in denial. Everyone tells me my numbers are meaningless. Okay then. What makes your pro gun control argument so compelling? Why do you think gun control will work? It made no dent in Australia. It had a deleterious effect in Britain.

This is so typical of this board. I post facts. Everyone else offers unsubstantiated opinions and then tells me I'm wrong. And it is all tainted with a hint of moral superiority. You guys don't even NEED to support your opinions because you're on the "right" side - the side in agreement with the New York Times et al. I'm just a brainwashed fool siding with the evil NRA. Why even debate me?

It's difficult to draw conclusions from the Australia data. Very different situations:
Their murder rate is so much lower than the US. 4.7 vs 1.1 per 100,000 population.
Percent of US homicides using firearms: 67%
Percent of Australia homicide using firearms before the ban: 24%
Percent of Australia homicides using firearms after the ban: 11%
I think a good case could be made that US homicides could be greatly reduced. Australian murderers seem pretty committed to killing with whatever is available since the overall rate didn't change a lot. I think a lot of US killings are only committed because guns are easily available, but I couldn't prove it.

[doclinkin]

This is one of those waste of time stats because the nation is awash with guns. There are already so many guns in the stream that correlating violence to gun ownership is meaningless. Guns can be illegally obtained without a ton of trouble. Guns can be legally obtained without much trouble.

I have no great idea where to start considering how many guns are already out there in private ownership -- legal and illegal. I'm tepidly in favor of making gun ownership akin to owning an automobile -- that is guns being registered (with annual renewal required), gun owners being licensed (complete with demonstrating proficiency before being issued a license), and owners being required to maintain insurance. It probably wouldn't do much to stop illegal trafficking in firearms, at least in the short term, but it might help a little.

Easy fix: require customers show a valid "gun license" to buy ammunition. The guns are in the stream but ammo is an expendable commodity.

As for that license itself, it seems sensible to me for gun owners to test for basic safety skills, vision, competence. And re-test as they age, etc. A driver's license is suspended for DUI's or even for those who have suffered a stroke, and some states require the elderly to retest as they decline. The argument that we are all safer if we all own guns is rendered moot if you're down range of a palsied old coot who decides to blast back at a perceived threat in a crowded movie theater, etc.

Yes registration, insurance, etc, as we require for autos would be sensible (though there are wrinkles on payout) but as it stands there is clearly nothing "well regulated" about gun ownership in the US nowadays. Even if you consider the archaic sense of the term 'regulated' meaning well-trained.

[montestewart]

Australia? Following a major incident they pass very restrictive laws and gun violence plummeted.
As far as urban-rural distribution, I'd guess Aus is a lot more like us than most european countries.

As far as distributing resources and proposing changes, first you have leave that famous river
in Egypt (Denial) and admit that you have a problem. The small but angry motivated minority
of people against gun laws think the answer is just that not enough people think like they do
and buy guns.

Meanwhile we can't even pass simple protections that would not present that large of an
obstacle to legal ownership that massive majorities, incl majorities of gun owners favor.
We can't actually say that none of these things would work because they have never been
accomplished in a meaningful way. You can talk about CHI/DC/Balt all you want but
all long as their laws are trivially bypassed, it really doesn't prove much of anything.

I looked up the Australia numbers and I don't see any indication that gun control has done much. They instituted gun restrictions and a gun buyback program in 1996/97 in the midst of a long term downtrend of homicides that started in 1969. After the gun restrictions, there was a notable uptick in homicides followed by a continuation of the downward trend. Here is a graph:



What "simple protections" would you like to have passed?

I was able to find numerous sources that show a significant drop in overall homicides in Australia between the start of the gun buyback program and the present, despite the initial spike. Here is one example:

https://welikeshooting.com/featured/the-other-country-fallacy/attachment/australia-homicide-rate/

Here is another example:

http://michaelnewbern.com/a-simple-regression-analysis-of-crime-rates-and-gun-policy-in-australia/

Both sites above are anti-gun control, but they start with the data above. I couldn't find a good chart for it, but various articles indicated that the downward trend has generally continued through 2015.

I only found one source that showed Australian homicide rates going back to 1969 (it goes back to 1950), and it didn't support your assertion that the buyback program came in the midst of a long downward trend. In fact it showed quite the opposite through about 1990 before trending downward, while the two charts above indicate the buyback came within a steady rise in homicides dating back to 1990 (the first year shown on the charts). What was the source of your numbers? Maybe there are competing stats floating around out there.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-vs-western-homicide-rates-2014-11

Maybe the uptick in homicides following the buyback is connected to the reduction of guns for defense, or maybe it was an upward trend that took a few years to reverse, even with buyback ultimately contributing positively to a lower homicide rate. Maybe the decline is not due to gun control, or maybe gun control is but one of multiple factors (maybe Australia has a lead paint issue too). Regardless of the reason, there has been a pronounced decline in homicides in Australia, and I don't see anything definitive ruling out the gun buyback contributing to that decline. That doesn't necessarily mean the same program would work in the U.S.

Remember, if guns are outlawed, only the govern…cough cough…er, outlaws will have guns.

PS: I'm not anti-gun per se (used to like them when I was younger). Some ordinary people (non-police, non-military) have surely protected themselves using guns, but guns just don't mix well with anger, depression, alcohol, or insanity.