Political Roundtable - Part VII

[dckingsfan]

About the same time they had their ‘rack ‘em, pack ‘em and stack ‘em’ policy (I think they have included mentally ill patients as well). Don't know enough about the policy - I have just heard my Aussie friends bemoan the use of the phrase.

[nate33]

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.

Good stuff, montestewart. It's interesting that the different sources are showing somewhat different numbers. I still don't see much that makes me believe the buyback made much difference. It's curious that that last chart showing all the nations shows absolutely no short term increase in homicides in the late 90's whereas the other charts do.

It's also notable that the post 1990 reduction in homicides in the USA was much more dramatic than it was in Australia or other nations despite no similar buyback program. (Obviously, we are dropping from a much higher initial point, so it's tough to say how that compares.)

[nate33]

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.

Interesting thoughts. It seems to me that this approach might lead to fewer accidental shootings, but how many accidental shootings are there? Do we really have a problem with drunken old coots accidentally killing people with guns?

From my understanding, most gun homicides are committed by two types of people. Either a career criminal/gang member obtains a gun illegally, or a violent psychopath gets one legally and instead of conveniently killing themselves, they decide they want to take out a school full of children with them. I'm not sure your approach would make any different in addressing these problems.

All that said, I could definitely get on board with the notion that some kind of training and licensing is required for one to get a permit for concealed carry. But isn't that already the case in most states?

[popper]

It's going to be interesting to see how the American public reacts when the sh*t hits the fan. So many people are oblivious to the economic devastation that's right around the corner. The Fed is terrified and can't even raise interest rates from zero to .025% because they're afraid the house of cards will come tumbling down. No wonder gun sales are setting new records. Most Americans have no idea what's in store for them. Meanwhile our leaders will be feasting on Caviar and Truffles as they laugh at the ignorant masses who believed their bullsh*t. The President is working hard to get through the next 15 months and hopes to depart the office before Americans realize that they've been had. It's possible he makes it, but it's going to be touch and go.

....... China’s debt has quadrupled since 2007. Fueled by real estate and shadow banking, China’s total debt has nearly quadrupled, rising to $28 trillion by mid-2014, from $7 trillion in 2007.......

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/debt_and_not_much_deleveraging

[montestewart]

It's going to be interesting to see how the American public reacts when the sh*t hits the fan. So many people are oblivious to the economic devastation that's right around the corner. The Fed is terrified and can't even raise interest rates from zero to .025% because they're afraid the house of cards will come tumbling down. No wonder gun sales are setting new records. Most Americans have no idea what's in store for them. Meanwhile our leaders will be feasting on Caviar and Truffles as they laugh at the ignorant masses who believed their bullsh*t. The President is working hard to get through the next 15 months and hopes to depart the office before Americans realize that they've been had. It's possible he makes it, but it's going to be touch and go.

....... China’s debt has quadrupled since 2007. Fueled by real estate and shadow banking, China’s total debt has nearly quadrupled, rising to $28 trillion by mid-2014, from $7 trillion in 2007.......

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/debt_and_not_much_deleveraging

Right you are, concerned citizen, and what comes next? What will happen to us all? From one of the most prescient postlapsarian pundits seated among us, we hear more truth than we can handle:

Hell is overflowing. And Satan is sending his dead to us. Why? Because you have sex out of wedlock. You kill unborn children. You have man-on-man relations. Same-sex marriage. How do you think your god will judge you? Well, friends, now we know. When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth.

Hear it here: DOTD

When our leaders are being disemboweled by the bloodthirsty mob, they'll wish they traded the caviar and truffles for extra clips and some night vision goggles.

[popper]

It's going to be interesting to see how the American public reacts when the sh*t hits the fan. So many people are oblivious to the economic devastation that's right around the corner. The Fed is terrified and can't even raise interest rates from zero to .025% because they're afraid the house of cards will come tumbling down. No wonder gun sales are setting new records. Most Americans have no idea what's in store for them. Meanwhile our leaders will be feasting on Caviar and Truffles as they laugh at the ignorant masses who believed their bullsh*t. The President is working hard to get through the next 15 months and hopes to depart the office before Americans realize that they've been had. It's possible he makes it, but it's going to be touch and go.

....... China’s debt has quadrupled since 2007. Fueled by real estate and shadow banking, China’s total debt has nearly quadrupled, rising to $28 trillion by mid-2014, from $7 trillion in 2007.......

http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/debt_and_not_much_deleveraging

Right you are, concerned citizen, and what comes next? What will happen to us all? From one of the most prescient postlapsarian pundits seated among us, we hear more truth than we can handle:

Hell is overflowing. And Satan is sending his dead to us. Why? Because you have sex out of wedlock. You kill unborn children. You have man-on-man relations. Same-sex marriage. How do you think your god will judge you? Well, friends, now we know. When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the earth.

Hear it here: DOTD

When our leaders are being disemboweled by the bloodthirsty mob, they'll wish they traded the caviar and truffles for extra clips and some night vision goggles.

It's just simple mathematics Monte. It has nothing to do with God or Satan. Nice straw man though. I'm sure the President appreciates your naivete and willingness to disregard a Mckinsey and Company report (and many others) in favor of a ridiculous narrative that the oceans are receding. After all, we are the change we've been waiting for...... or if you like your doctor or insurance you can keep them... Seriously, do you really believe this stuff?

[dckingsfan]

Monte - not sure why you are taking pokes at McKinsey unless you have been part of a restructuring... there view is shared by many (most of the rational ones) in business. I will take a swing at this later - but the study is very solid. It is what is literally freaking the Fed, World Bank and IMF out right now.

[montestewart]

Monte - not sure why you are taking pokes at McKinsey unless you have been part of a restructuring... there view is shared by many (most of the rational ones) in business. I will take a swing at this later - but the study is very solid. It is what is literally freaking the Fed, World Bank and IMF out right now.

Did I mention McKinsey? At all? Seemed like a well reasoned position. Didn't see truffles mentioned.

PS: like McKinsey, I've been involved with a few restructurings.

[nate33]

I'm extremely pessimistic on the financial condition of the U.S. and the 1st world in general. I think a catastrophic collapse is due at some point. But I've been thinking that for a long time and haven't been proven right yet, so I don't know what to think.

Fundamentally, I simply can't understand why anyone would by U.S. debt when it's patently obvious that we cannot possibly pay it off and we are sure to default (either by default or inflation). For the most part, other countries have indeed ceased in buy our debt so the Fed is printing money to buy it. With that the case, I don't understand why anyone continues to value the Dollar. Essentially, we are alloying our gold coins with copper and tin, and nobody seems to care. How long can this continue?

We have an economy based on printing green pieces of paper and exchanging them for real goods and services that we then give away to an army of welfare recipients. 35% of the population are currently receiving means-tested benefits. Another 15% are receiving Social Security which is described as an "insurance program" but we all know it's a totally unfunded direct wealth transfer. So half the nation is receiving hand outs. Meanwhile, a significant portion of the so called "productive half" earn their money by servicing the entitlement crowd. If the entitlement money dried up, they'd be out of work too. In reality, if this shell game of money printing and borrowing comes to end, only about 25% of the nation will still be at work. Effectively 75% of this economy is smoke and mirrors.

[nate33]

I know everyone here hates her, but Ann Coulter's latest column brings up some very interesting points regarding the mass shootings in the U.S.

Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them “common sense” crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.

Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?

That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people a few decades ago is also correct.

But liberals won`t allow the dangerous mentally ill to be committed to institutions against their will. (The threat of commitment is very persuasive in getting disturbed individuals to take their medicine.) Something in liberals` genetic makeup compels them to attack civilization, for example, by defending the right of dangerous psychotics to refuse treatment and then representing them in court after they commit murder.

Ann Coulter is obviously a partisan so many on this board are going to reflexively disagree with her, but she makes a compelling point. If guns were the problem, why has there been such a reduction in gun violence with a concurrent increase in mass shootings? Could it be that we have a mental health problem and not a gun problem? Ann continues:

According to a 2002 report [PDF] by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:

Austria, 175
Finland, 218
Germany, 175
Sweden, 114
England, 93

The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S.—voluntarily or involuntarily—is: 17. Yes, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are a grand total of 17 psychiatric beds even available, not necessarily being used. In 1955, there were 340.

Countless people have railed against America's incarceration practices, but we have the exact opposite policy as Europe when dealing with mental health. Could it be that if we addressed the issue preemptively by identifying and caring for the mentally ill, we could stop our incarceration problem before it starts?

Ann Coulter seems to think the de-institutionalizing movement was spearheaded by liberals in the late 60's. I don't know enough about it to assess whether she is right. But at any rate, who is standing in the way of institutionalizing now? I'm assuming it's ACLU types but maybe it's small-government types.

(Note the first quote was from an older Coulter article here. The second quote is from her latest article here.)

[dckingsfan]

Monte - not sure why you are taking pokes at McKinsey unless you have been part of a restructuring... there view is shared by many (most of the rational ones) in business. I will take a swing at this later - but the study is very solid. It is what is literally freaking the Fed, World Bank and IMF out right now.

Did I mention McKinsey? At all? Seemed like a well reasoned position. Didn't see truffles mentioned.

PS: like McKinsey, I've been involved with a few restructurings.

Okay then, puzzled by the response?

[montestewart]

Don't have time to research it now, but the 1969 start date sounds right, and many people were rightly moved from state facilities back into the community. I think what made the practice dangerous was when budgetary considerations influenced decisions. I remember much debate about this during the Reagan administration, and suddenly there seemed to be a lot more homeless people walking the streets of DC talking to themselves.

[TheSecretWeapon]

Don't have time to read Coulter's piece at the moment. I wonder if she addresses the policy of mass incarceration that started right around the same time, and the data indicating that many people (I think the percentage is over half) imprisoned for criminal acts suffer from mental illness. I also wonder if she addresses the research that seems to have found a link between lead and violent crime.

[bsilver]

I know everyone here hates her, but Ann Coulter's latest column brings up some very interesting points regarding the mass shootings in the U.S.

Tellingly, throughout the last three decades, the overall homicide rate has been in free fall, thanks to Republican crime policies, from 10 per 100,000 in 1980 to 4 per 100,00 today. (You might even call them “common sense” crime policies.) But the number of mass shootings has skyrocketed from 4 per year, between 1900 and 1970, to 29 per year since then.

Something seems to have gone horribly wrong right around 1970. What could it be? Was it the introduction of bell-bottoms?

That date happens to correlate precisely with when the country began throwing the mentally ill out of institutions in 1969. Your memory of there not being as many mass murders a few decades ago is correct. Your memory of there not being as many homeless people a few decades ago is also correct.

But liberals won`t allow the dangerous mentally ill to be committed to institutions against their will. (The threat of commitment is very persuasive in getting disturbed individuals to take their medicine.) Something in liberals` genetic makeup compels them to attack civilization, for example, by defending the right of dangerous psychotics to refuse treatment and then representing them in court after they commit murder.

Ann Coulter is obviously a partisan so many on this board are going to reflexively disagree with her, but she makes a compelling point. If guns were the problem, why has there been such a reduction in gun violence with a concurrent increase in mass shootings? Could it be that we have a mental health problem and not a gun problem? Ann continues:

According to a 2002 report [PDF] by Central Institute of Mental Health for the European Union, the number of involuntarily detained mental patients, per 100,000 people, in other countries looks like this:

Austria, 175
Finland, 218
Germany, 175
Sweden, 114
England, 93

The absolute maximum number of mental patients per 100,000 people who could possibly be institutionalized by the state in the U.S.—voluntarily or involuntarily—is: 17. Yes, according to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are a grand total of 17 psychiatric beds even available, not necessarily being used. In 1955, there were 340.

Countless people have railed against America's incarceration practices, but we have the exact opposite policy as Europe when dealing with mental health. Could it be that if we addressed the issue preemptively by identifying and caring for the mentally ill, we could stop our incarceration problem before it starts?

Ann Coulter seems to think the de-institutionalizing movement was spearheaded by liberals in the late 60's. I don't know enough about it to assess whether she is right. But at any rate, who is standing in the way of institutionalizing now? I'm assuming it's ACLU types but maybe it's small-government types.

(Note the first quote was from an older Coulter article here. The second quote is from her latest article here.)

There's plenty of factual information available on de-institutionalization. Why would anyone rely on Coulter for this information? Of course she would blame liberals, but I don't see evidence of this unless you assume psychiatrists are liberal and that was the cause of their recommendations. It started in the 50s and 60s for several reasons:
There was lots of criticism of conditions of mental hospitals. (Ken Kesey's 1962 book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is an example)
The hospitals were very expensive to maintain.
With the advent of drugs like thorazine, there was optimism that drugs would be the answer to the problem rather than long term institutionalization.
The movement started for community based solutions rather than large scale institutionalization.
Psychiatrists sold politicians a bill of goods that the hospitals were not as necessary anymore, and politicians were happy to go along. (There were lots of commissions and hearing in the 60s). Money was a big factor, but they were all most likely sincere in their beliefs that there was better alternatives.

Why can't institutionalizaton start again? It's prohibited by Supreme Court decisions, 1975 O'Connor vs Donaldson, and 1979 Addington vs Texas. The decisions basically say that non-violent mentally ill people can't be held against their will.

[Induveca]

Monte - not sure why you are taking pokes at McKinsey unless you have been part of a restructuring... there view is shared by many (most of the rational ones) in business. I will take a swing at this later - but the study is very solid. It is what is literally freaking the Fed, World Bank and IMF out right now.

Did I mention McKinsey? At all? Seemed like a well reasoned position. Didn't see truffles mentioned.

PS: like McKinsey, I've been involved with a few restructurings.

Then why the crazed babble?

[dckingsfan]

Okay, so more stuff that makes the McKinsey analysis fairly reasonable.

1) The Fed is serious frozen.
2) IMF just lowered its forecast down to $73.3 Trillion from 76.3. The predict that in dollar terms 2016 will be smaller than 2014
3) Employment as a share of working age population is 59.2% - barely above the nasty trough in 2010
4) Commercial and industrial lending just hit a wall to a 5.7%
5) Total Credit over the last 5 years is 7.6 trillion BUT government (37%) growth, big business (32%) growth with nominal growth from small business and households of (6%) tells the real story.

Near-zero rates combined with the federal regulation of the quantity of credit hasn't worked. It messed with credit markets, slowed growth.

Wealth has become even more concentrated, because the artificially low rates benefit those who already have capital and assets at the expense of those who don’t.

I see more of the same - but now McKinsey is squealing - because their customers (the big guys) are about to be walloped as well.

[dckingsfan]

And if you are wondering why the Fed didn't raise rates (summary):

1) consecutive quarters of 3%-plus growth - nope
2) 5.1% unemployment rate but sadly - 10.3% of working age workers are unemployed, they watch the second index
3) Real compensation is 3.8% below year-2000 levels - oops
4) Trailing 12-month inflation of 1.5% or higher - er, nope 1.2%

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/here-are-the-benchmarks-the-fed-should-use-to-raise-interest-rates-2015-09-22?utm_source=WhatTheyThink+Newsletters&utm_campaign=2712dd8386-2015_10_08_Economics&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_0e715f456d-2712dd8386-322082785

[nate33]

Don't have time to read Coulter's piece at the moment. I wonder if she addresses the policy of mass incarceration that started right around the same time, and the data indicating that many people (I think the percentage is over half) imprisoned for criminal acts suffer from mental illness. I also wonder if she addresses the research that seems to have found a link between lead and violent crime.

I should have omitted that last paragraph from Coulter's quote because it has made this a liberal versus conservative argument and I didn't intend it to be. I'm more interested in the mental illness versus violent criminal argument. I think Coulter might agree with you. Mass incarceration became (arguably) necessary because of the decline of institutionalization.

[nate33]

There's plenty of factual information available on de-institutionalization. Why would anyone rely on Coulter for this information? Of course she would blame liberals, but I don't see evidence of this unless you assume psychiatrists are liberal and that was the cause of their recommendations. It started in the 50s and 60s for several reasons:
There was lots of criticism of conditions of mental hospitals. (Ken Kesey's 1962 book, One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest is an example)
The hospitals were very expensive to maintain.
With the advent of drugs like thorazine, there was optimism that drugs would be the answer to the problem rather than long term institutionalization.
The movement started for community based solutions rather than large scale institutionalization.
Psychiatrists sold politicians a bill of goods that the hospitals were not as necessary anymore, and politicians were happy to go along. (There were lots of commissions and hearing in the 60s). Money was a big factor, but they were all most likely sincere in their beliefs that there was better alternatives.

Why can't institutionalizaton start again? It's prohibited by Supreme Court decisions, 1975 O'Connor vs Donaldson, and 1979 Addington vs Texas. The decisions basically say that non-violent mentally ill people can't be held against their will.

I didn't rely on Coulter for anything. I even pointed out that Coulter was likely to only be telling half the story on who was to blame for the decline in institutionalization.

I can understand that advances in drugs may have reduced the need for institutionalization, but that should have taken place in Europe as well. Is the difference in European institutionalization versus American institutionalization today due solely to those Supreme Court decisions? I would think that with something so ill-defined as mental illness, there would be bureaucratic and semantic ways to redefine those court decisions so that they weren't so constraining.

[montestewart]

Monte - not sure why you are taking pokes at McKinsey unless you have been part of a restructuring... there view is shared by many (most of the rational ones) in business. I will take a swing at this later - but the study is very solid. It is what is literally freaking the Fed, World Bank and IMF out right now.

Did I mention McKinsey? At all? Seemed like a well reasoned position. Didn't see truffles mentioned.

PS: like McKinsey, I've been involved with a few restructurings.

Then why the crazed babble?

Two posters with senses of humor gave me an and1. Think of all the life you are missing. To paraphrase Riggo, loosen up, Indu baby.