[Fill-in-the-blanks] Don't Make Us [Fill-in-the-blanks] - What a Shallow and Inane Thing to Say! [242]

OOPS!

I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HUB TOPIC to put this under, but I just read the statement "Bud Judd Apatow movies don't make people criminally insane", speaking of Elliot Rogers and the massacre near the University of Santa Barbara he is responsible for. The author of the piece, Rich Lowry, was deriding liberals for allegedly implying the "movie" made him do it. If that was what the liberals were actually saying, which I doubt, then his statement is as ill-thought and shallow thinking as is theirs.

"Guns don't kill people", "movies don't make people insane", "video games don't turn our children into criminals" are all true in their strictest meaning, which is why they are so compelling and easy to use for those who do not wish or are not able to engage in intelligent conversation. There is no doubt in my mind that if I spent the time, I could find at least one anecdote where each of these statements are false. Granted, guns, movies, and video games didn't willfully do anything, which I suppose is the reason they are used in the first place, but absent them, and with no other human human's action was the causative factor. It would be the initiating reason because, in the gun's case, it accidentally misfired when dropped for fell off a table during an earthquake; or in the movie and game's case because they set up conditions in an emotionally disturbed person's mind that pushed them past some breaking point at that particular moment whereas another movie or game would not have, at least then.

People from the far-Left and the far-Right, but rarely if ever from the Middle, use these sound bites because they like to make a very complex world simple, which 1) can't be done and 2) deflects the issue from its more important features. Take guns for example. I, a coward who hates physical confrontation, am standing in front of you with a pistol with the intent to kill you. I do so because I am not in physical contact with you and I have the gun ... it makes it easy, While I intentionally pulled the trigger, the gun worked and delivered the bullet which killed you. Absent that gun, however, you would be alive because stabbing you, beating you until your dead, throwing things at you (I am a terrible aim) simply isn't going to happen. In fact, I wouldn't be standing there with the intent to kill you until I had a gun. Consequently, it was the presence of the gun which allowed the murder to occur and with extremely little linguistic stretch, I can say "Guns Do Kill People".

So You Empathize?

LIKEWISE FOR MOVIES, VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES, and other such things that potentially incite people to do things they otherwise might not have absent these initiators. When I watch a movie, I really get into it ... I empathize with it because I don't get very emotionally involved in real life; it is my release. I cry, I get angry, sad, and happy. I get mad at the directors if they do something stupid to detract from the plot or characters that divert my absorption. Rarely do these emotions leave me as soon as the movie is over if it were an intense one; instead they linger around for awhile and I play "what-if" scenarios, if I didn't like the outcome. Sometimes they stay around long enough to lead to hubs such as the one on "The Help" or "Lincoln". In fact I still get worked up when I think about "The Help" and it has been years.

Most, but not all (like my wife), think I am of sound mind and able body. But what if I was not? Look at how impressionable I am and then think how a movie might affect someone who is not of sound mind; how they might obsess on what they saw; how they might take it personally; how they might feel threatened, maybe enough to do something about it. Go find one of your friends you is OCD (yes, I bet you have one or know someone who does, that condition is not particularly rare) and ask them what it is like to obsess about something.

Now, those on the extremes will immediately jump to the conclusion that I want to censor all films, just like any good liberal would do (when in fact, it is the fundamentalists who are in to censoring); but I am not. What I am suggesting is that you don't play the simpleton's game of saying "Bud Judd Apatow movies don't make people criminally insane"; which on the face of it is true, but peel back one-layer (which is hard for Mr. Lowry to do I suppose) and you could rephrase that sound-bite into a little bit more intelligent one by saying ""Bud Judd Apatow movies may make criminally insane people act" (BTW, I have no idea who Judd Apatow is)

RIPPED!

Source

Violence in Video

THIS LEADS US TO THE NEXT TOPIC OF impressionable young minds, where I do believe censorship is required. And that is violent, graphic video games. I think they ought to be banned for any male under the age of 35 and any female under the age of 30 (OK, ok, 18 for both sexes.) I use those ages to make a point, however. Studies show that men and women do not complete the maturation process; meaning the brain does not stop developing until the age of 25, and it is my observations people don't really start acting mature until those ages. Until 25 then, environmental input is shaping the neural connections inside the brain which, in combination with our genetic make-up, ultimately determines what we will be like.

When I was a kid, we watched sanitized versions of mayhem on TV and in the movies where it was pretty clear to us what was going on. Kit Carson (Google him) would pull out a gun and kill the bad guy, he would fall down, we would rarely see any blood, and then off to the next scene. Then we would go outside and play cowboy and Native American (alright, Indian) where we would both take turns getting killed and going into death throes that would make any pro-wrestler proud.

But since the mid-1980s and especially into the 2000s, extremely graphic, violent, sexual video games have flooded the market that are easily accessible to young children. At the same time, the violent crime rate among females held steady from 1973 to 1989 while the male rate held steady until 1981, when it began to decline until 1989. They both peaked in 1994-1995 and dropped dramatically with the passage of the 1994 and 1995 federal gun laws as well as any state laws passed in that period. Both rates have been on the rise again since 2000, coincidentally with both the expiration of some of the federal laws and a massive effort by Red States to make it almost mandatory to own guns and the extremeness and vividness of the graphics accompanying the violent video games.

I, at this point, won't state there is a causal relationship between the violent games and violent behavior in youth, but I will suggest it is rational to think so. (There is, however, a very strong correlation between the rate of legal gun ownership and the rate of death by guns, as I proved in a different series of hubs.) Young minds in the age group that avidly play these games are rapidly forming their neural connections and as previously mentioned for adults, their environment plays a large part in how they will turn out; except the influence is an order of magnitude greater with younger people than older ones.

The believe is that children and teenagers can easily tell the difference between the reality around them and the make-believe of the particular game they are playing. And if they were occasionally playing these games, I would have a hard time arguing with that. But, if they become immersed in this violence, then what is there to counter its influence? Certainly not the parents, so many of them gave up on parenting back in the 1960s and turned it over to the schools. And now not the schools, between the states stripping them of all their funding so pet projects can keep on going and potential legal issues even if they do try to intervene; there is no help there.

Many researchers are studying this phenomenon and results are showing things like this from an abstract in Psychological Science:

"Research on exposure to television and movie violence suggests that playing violent video games will increase aggressive behavior. A meta-analytic review of the video-game research literature reveals that violent video games increase aggressive behavior in children and young adults. Experimental and non-experimental studies with males and females in laboratory and field settings support this conclusion. Analyses also reveal that exposure to violent video games increases physiological arousal and aggression-related thoughts and feelings. Playing violent video games also decreases pro-social behavior."

Another article suggested that pro-social games illicit pro-social behavior.

The point I am trying to make, of course, isn't whether violent video games increase (cause) aggressive behavior but to put a lie to simplifying statements like "[violent video games] don't make us [hurt people]" for they very possibly could.

The Bottom Line

I COULD CITE MANY MORE EXAMPLES but feel this is enough to make my case. Anytime you hear someone tries to preempt a debate on gun control with the categorical statement "[guns] don't make us [kill people, people kill people], you immediately know two things, 1) that person is out of mental ammunition and 2) that person is not interested in listening to fact and figures. The same can be said when anybody else uses a different version of [Fill-in-the-blanks] Don't Make Us {Fill-in-the-blanks].

© 2014 My Esoteric

More by this Author


Comments 43 comments

JayeWisdom profile image

JayeWisdom 2 years ago from Deep South, USA

I fully believe that immersion in violent and sadistic video games, as well as frequently watching violent, gory movies with a high body count has a negative effect on the young, immature mind. There isn't one iota of respect for human life in these games and movies. The only goal is absolute carnage.

Someone who is mentally unstable is more likely to develop an obsession to carry out the actions seen on the screen, but I don't think these violent games and movies are good for even the healthy (but immature) young mind. I believe we only have to look at the increase in homicides as well as the types of killings to realize this isn't just a 'trend,' but a cause and effect.

Voted Up+++ and shared

Jaye


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thank you @JayeWisdom. I wonder if the data is available and, if so, if anyone has tried to correlate 1) the rate of viewing of these types of games and movies and 2) the level of desensitizing each has with each of the four types of crime that make up violent crime? My personal opinion is that it may be hard to separate the increase in legal gun ownership from the increase in homicides since 2002, from the effect of video games and I am not sure there is a very strong cause-and-effect relationship anyway. But, guns only played a role, albeit a weak one, in homicides (increasing) and armed robberies (decreasing) but not in violent rape and aggravated assault. It is these latter three where I think the impact of these video games will be mostly seen.


ChristinS profile image

ChristinS 2 years ago from Midwest

Excellent hub on a subject with so many nuances. Years ago I did a research paper for a college class on the effects of violent cartoons/children's programming on young children's minds. Back then, there was actually more concern for this problem among grownups (early 90's). There was compelling evidence to show that desensitization starts very early and that by seeing acts of violence repeated (gory or not) it still may have that effect. Of course I'm not one for banning everything, not even guns, but I really wish people would not try to make everything such a black and white issue. If more people were able or willing to think critically and honestly about the epidemic of violence in this country, perhaps we could get somewhere with common sense and not mandates. Voted up, interesting etc.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks @ChristinS, I remember all of the hubbub back then. I remember the cartoons of my day, 1950s and 60s and then see what my step-grandkids see today and am astonished by the stark difference. Both had violence, but as I remember it, in my day it was generally done in a funny way wrapped in comedy; it was clearly make-believe.

Not so today. You still have the good guys and bad guys, but there is real anger and intent to harm in the cartoon violence I watch my grandkids watching.

Oh, please bring back Rocky and Bullwinkle, I would still watch them at 67.


Depwavid 2 years ago from Panama City Beach

Collectible Polish Army Revolver?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

LOL.


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

It seems like you and I are on the opposite side of many issues.

I first of all don't think that the Polish Army Revolver is LOL.

Second, the whole point of guns and gun deaths is where is the most danger in gun possession.

The biggest intentional killers that use guns, are the gangs, especially the drug cartels.

The law abiding citizen that turns in their guns are not reducing the threat of gun deaths. Accidental gun deaths are a function of poor or no education on possessing a gun. It is much like a driver that has not been educated and tested on safe driving.

Possessing guns for home defense also requires knowing and practicing gun safety. Home defense is for when uninvited criminals are in the house with you, and without a defense you could be hurt or dead. The police can't get there in time, but it doesn't mean that you have to shoot to protect yourself. Again, this is an education and practice issue.

Taking the guns away from law abiding citizens doesn't impact a criminal. Making guns illegal doesn't do it either, Like alcohol in Prohibition, someone will sell you the contraband.

So, well you make light of the guns don't kill, it is the people that you have to worry about, more than the weapon.

The Internet will show people how to make bombs, so isn't it a people issue, and not the device.

Sure, you can show exceptions to anything, but the general rule doesn't support it.

As for your argument about violent movies and video games, one only has to look at cartoons for children. The Roadrunner is violent and yet most children can go on without emulating that violence in real terms.

So, it all comes down to the person. Yes, there are very sensitive people that walk the line between reality, and movies and video games, but a normal person is not going to emulate them.

As for video games, in my case at least, the violent video reduces my tension and relaxes me because the games allows me to vent stress. I own several guns, but I never think about using them to do bad things. I am trained to use them and I know and practice gun safety. I don't hunt, I target shoot.

Most of the people that I know and have guns, think the same way.

So, I don't see anything useful about mental ammunition.

So far, the government has not come up with a solution to getting the guns away from the criminals. Not everyone should own a gun, but those that do own a gun should know how to use it and possess it safely, for themselves and others.

The person that will use a gun intentionally to commit a criminal act, would also use a knife, a bomb, a car, or any object that will satisfy their criminal intent.

Road Rage in CA is the act of a person crossing the line, so are we supposed to take cars off the road because a few drivers are that dangerous. Or do we focus on the drivers?

Thanks

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Depending on what you mean by "intentional killers" in "The biggest intentional killers that use guns, are the gangs, especially the drug cartels.", that may or may not be true. The #1 use for guns to kill people is by the victim themselves in suicides; they account for nearly 50% of all gun deaths. All homicides come next. Now I don't have any numbers, but can probably find them, on how many of the homicides are from gangs and drug cartels (I thought machetes was their preferred weapon) but a great number are split between killings between intimates and incidental to other crimes. Things like road rage, accidental, criminal-on-cop, cop-on-criminal, and similar types of occasional shootings. constitute and extremely small percentage

Law abiding citizens who do turn in their weapons do reduce overall death by guns simple because that reduces the rate of legal gun ownership, which is tied directly to the rate of death by gun. What it reduces mostly are suicides, then intimate homicides, then other homicides caused by someone who stole their gun.

Your mention of poor training in gun use ... that goes directly to more education. Those states whose regulations actually require training in how to use a gun before purchasing have lower rates of death by gun than those states who don't. That is why I advocate better regulation of guns.

I have no issue with guns in the home for defense, neither does the Supreme Court which is why I always have to laugh and shake my head every time some pro-gun guy brings up the sky-is-falling argument that everybody except the NRA is trying to ban guns. That is a ludicrous argument to those who know how to reason, deflecting and a waste of time when brought with some body who knows better, and is only good for inciting fellow believers into action.

Guns will never be banned in the United States, nor should they be, just well regulated, which the Supreme Court and common sense allow.

What I make light of is the inane bumper sticker argument made by pro-gun advocates that "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People" to battle the bumper sticker which says "Regulate Gun". In actual fact, it isn't the gun that kills the people, it is the bullet that the gun ejected that does the killing; a person may or may not have initiated the bullet leaving the gun. Likewise, "Regulate Guns" is semantically wrong in that it is simply an abbreviation for "Regulate the Process for People to Acquire Guns".

S0 long as Pro-gun types insist on interpreting "Regulate Guns" to mean banning gun ownership, I will continue to make light of their slogan as well, even though I know what they really mean.

Some people see only black or white and others see a rainbow of colors, I am one of the latter. To watch cartoons like "Roadrunner" and "Rocky and Bullwinkle" (still my all time favorite, I would watch it today) is not the same thing as watching some of the cartoons my grandkids watch whose level of violence, but more importantly, level of graphical realism is Orders of Magnitude worse than when I was a kid; the difference has meaning and impact on young minds. Having a rock fall on Wiley's head is funny, the way they do it, for he springs right back up AND it is much different than watching a young boy in a space suit blast an enemy into a million gory pieces and smile about it. Those leave entirely different impression in kids minds, wouldn't you agree?

This kind of statement "So, it all comes down to the person. Yes, there are very sensitive people that walk the line between reality, and movies and video games, but a normal person is not going to emulate them." gives me you would have a Que Sera, Sera attitude (which I doubt you do) toward massacres like Columbine and Sandy Hook; oh well, nothing we can do, they were just one of those rare abnormalities. While I doubt you feel that way, many people do and that is both scary and depressing.

You can never get guns away from anyone that really wants one, but you can make it much harder than it is today. Right now, States like AZ and LA damn near give them to criminals, their regulations are so lax. Mandatory background checks on every legal gun transfer (not just sale) would go a long way in reducing the number of guns in criminal hands. According the criminals who have been interviewed, will over 50% of the guns they used in crimes were obtained legally, normally from friends and families.

This statement "The person that will use a gun intentionally to commit a criminal act, would also use a knife, a bomb, a car, or any object that will satisfy their criminal intent." could be proven true or false, but relative to this conversation is not relevant unless you insert the word death or killed in it. In that case, this statement would be wrong.

See, I am getting to them.


bradmaster 2 years ago

My Esoteric

1. Your first argument is suicide, this is clearly a victimless crime, and it would better be addressed by solving the reason for suicide, or in the case where there is terminal illness, to do assisted suicide. I also don't believe that suicide is a crime, it is a failure of people coping with life. It is like blaming people that have chronic unbearable pain, to be classed as drug addicts, because they are hooked on Vicadin. This is a failure of the medical Industry to provide medical solutions, rather than painkillers.

Suicides must be addressed before the device used. So you reduce the gun suicides, and put them in other methods. You haven't even tried to solve the real problem, and that is the reason for suicides.

When I say intentional, I mean against other people, specifically innocent people.

2.You make an argument that Road Rage is so infrequent that it is not a factor, and then you talk about Columbine which is just as infrequent. In the latter case, it always brings out the ban on guns, and the people making this cry, actually mean ban, not educate.

3. I think that the cartoons of today are more violent especially for the very young, they are also very snotty in social relationships. There are very few like Clifford.

4. The gangs are protecting a billion dollar industry, and they not only have weapons that our better than most police and the Border Patrol, they have infiltrated the police, the military, and other government agencies, so along with that inside information, they have state of the art communications equipment.

Making it more difficult for people that shouldn't have guns legally is a step that should be taken. However, I remember where there was a list of over 20,000 people in Southern California that were classified a legally emotionally unable to own a gun. Yet, the government agency claimed that they didn't have the budget to confiscate the weapons from these people. So budget trumps doing the right thing.

5. So it is your belief that only deaths by weapons is important to stop. In California there are numerous cases, where people have been knifed, beaten to unconsciousness by hands and feet, or a blunt object, but they lived. In many cases, on life support, or like the SF baseball fan that got beaten in the LA Dodger parking lot after the game. He is alive but not really functioning very well.

6. So I don't see how you can put the deadly device which is just the method of choice for the person to kill, maim, or hurt another person. Suicide is just another reason of the person to use the device.

A gun by itself doesn't kill, and we both agree on gun safety, and people being vetted for gun possession, and that the government can control these issues. The real problem is the criminal acquisition and use of guns, especially military quality weapons. I did some research on gangs a while back and they are the real major threat, both in their contraband products, and their weaponry.

Unfortunately, when an intruder can get to the White House and have it evacuated, what is the average home, or business owner going to do to protect themselves.

In recent years, the police shootings have increased, at least the ones causing death. The situations usually say that the police thought they saw a weapon, and shot the person. Yet, under most self defense laws in the country, a private person would have been held liable for the death. The police are better trained, and they have other weapons that are not lethal, and yet their threshold of self defense is lower than the average citizen.

LOS ANGELES – A civilian oversight board has found that eight Los Angeles police officers who mistakenly opened fired on two women during a manhunt for rogue ex-cop Christopher Dorner violated department policy.

The Police Commission's decision Tuesday follows an earlier settlement in which the city agreed to pay the pair $4.2 million.

Margie Carranza and her then 71-year-old mother, Emma Hernandez, were delivering papers around 5 a.m. on Feb. 7 when LAPD officers guarding the Torrance home of a target named in an online Dorner manifesto blasted at least 100 rounds at their pickup.

Hernandez was shot in the back and Carranza had minor injuries

Now this is not only non professional shooting, even if they were the bad guys, a 100 rounds. Sounds like these police need retraining.

---

I think that you and I have some common ground here.

Thanks

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Thanks for reading yet another of my hubs, as I have said before, I do appreciate it. Apparently I have 45 more comments to get to.

1. I hardly think suicide is "victimless" act (I do not think it is a crime either); many leave behind people who are emotionally and financially dependent on them. But why does it have to be solved in a serial manner as you suggest, why not take various actions in parallel? The ones you mention are obviously good ones, but the ones I suggest have a positive effect as well, just faster, although to a lesser degree than the longer term approaches.

2. In terms of road rage (and the others I mention) as well as the Columbines, in total, they account for a small percentage of gun homicides and don't perturb the overall statistics or the conclusions drawn from them. And yes, the kid killings do draw the anti-gun nuts out who want to "ban" guns altogether, but they are pissing in the wind, it isn't going to happen, not in this country. What hopefully will happen, as soon as enough kids die, is sensible gun regulations get passed at the federal level such as universal background checks which everybody in America wants except NRA leadership and a handful of its members plus a few other idiots. Then there are regulations on "gun-running", the favorite source of guns for places like Chicago and D.C., that can be put in place, and removing the obstacles the NRA put in place to prevent law enforcement from tracking the movement of guns used in crimes. Things like that.

3. Yep. But now you won't have to worry about that. I just read over the weekend that the last cable channel that aired Saturday morning cartoons is going to stop doing so in favor of content aimed at teens and young adult.

4. Yes, prioritizing how money is spent does seem to always shortchange security operations. Conservatives scream "protect our borders" and then don't provide the funds to do so. (Don't worry, I have analogous complaints about the liberals.)

5. No, I don't believe death by guns is the only important thing. But it is the only thing that has a large constituency that wants to keep it easy to do when its not difficult to make it much harder.

6. Suicide is by far the most popular deadly use of guns where simple regulations can have the most impact.

Technically, a gun can kill by itself; I can construct a couple of absurd, but nevertheless real life scenarios where this has happened. That said, they always involve a human having left a round in the chamber, however.

Semantically, I can make a case that it is the gun that kills, but if I go down that route, I actually must go a step further and say it is the projectile that kills; then the gun; then the human who pulled the trigger. For if you work the other direction and start with the human pulling the trigger, the gun could always misfire. If the gun fires, the projectile could be defective and blow up in the gun or disintegrate upon leaving the gun. Switching back again, if a person dies because they were struck by a projectile from a gun, it isn't a given that a human pulled the trigger.

For SURE, recent events have shown the Secret Service needs retraining and WHAT the police are trained to do, apparently, plus the amount of training needs revamping.


bradmaster from Orange County CA 2 years ago

My Esoteric

My final conclusion is that with over three hundred million people in this country, the gross statics on crime and guns indicates that it is only a small percentage of the population that are criminals, or people that have fired guns criminally.

So the general rule is that external stimuli is not the root cause of actions by the people when they do something criminal. These people must have had the propensity to do these things in the first place.

In many cases, it is how they were treated by society in their everyday lives that triggered these acts.

Thanks

bm

Just my opinion.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

I doubt that you are far off in your opinion. In my study of genetics and heredity, there is no doubt in my mind that some people, not that many, but some who are simply born bad; a lot of them are your psychopaths because neuroscientists have found where in the brain psychopathy is expressed. But most, as you say are nurture, rather than nature.

Of criminal homicides, 68% are by gun. The next highest are knives at 12% Well of 50% of guns possessed by criminals were obtained legally, normally from friends and family.


bradmaster from Orange County CA 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Another agreement!

I just thought of something else.

If you believe the story about Cain killing Abel, No gun was used by Cain.

Thanks

bm


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

No, but anecdotal evidence proves nothing; only gross statistics do. But, in any case, if such a thing were real, it would part of the 32% where people died from other than gunshot.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

The important point in that story is that it is the person and not the weapon that kills.

Stated another way, when a person is charged with murder, one of the key elements of the crime is Mens Rea.

Without proving intent, you can't prove murder.

So intent is what caused the act, and the weapon is merely the vehicle of satisfying that intent.

Thanks

bradmaster


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Granted, except in the rare circumstances I pointed out before and being loose semantically, it is the human being that begins the process of killing with a gun; the bullet finishes the job it if functions as it was designed. If all that happens, then the person's intent is fulfilled.

But what that gobbledygook just said is that Guns and the Bullets facilitate death by gun. In order to have a death by gun, the required ingredients are a bullet, gunpowder, a gun, and the person intentionally or unintentionally causing the gun to fire. Minus "anyone of those ingredients" then there is no death by gun.

What this hub sets out to do is to argue that guns, violent movies, violent video games facilitate death by gun or other bad behavior. My other hubs show there is a strong statistical positive correlation between the ease of obtaining a gun and the increased number of deaths by gun. The fact that there are 50 states with different laws regulating gun purchases and 50 different corresponding rates of death by gun makes this a relatively straight forward statistical analysis.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Your argument is a circular, premised on the intended result, and not the root cause of the problem.

If one goes back a step, then before the gun is indicted for the murder, it can be construed that without the person the death by gun wouldn't be able to occur.

It is the old question of the person versus the environment as the cause of the creation of the criminal. The answer comes in the form of the environment produces both the criminal and the police officer. So the conclusion must be that the root cause of the difference is the person.

Almost categorically, one can say that no one has to teach people to be evil, but most of the population has to be taught, or intimidated to behave. The problem today is that many people are not intimidated or threatened to submit to the good of society.

Half the gun deaths are attributed to suicide, but suicide is not limited to the use of guns to get that end. My point is that the focus should be on helping the people and that will do more good for them and the country than the focus on guns and violence.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Very true, in 99.95% of the cases, no person, the gun will kill nobody. But, in 100% of the cases, no gun or bullet (assuming the gun doesn't become a club) the gun kills nobody. BOTH must be present.

As far as criminal behavior of goes, of course it is a combination of nurture and nature that results in a bad person; but that is not the issue, not even close. The issue is what FACILITATES bad behavior and all of those things mentioned in the hub do that for some people.

You have a good point in "helping the people". but it will do more harm by not simultaneously doing something about the proliferation of legal guns which is known to increase the number of deaths by gun.

What you propose is to let those people who die because of loose gun regulations die while everyone focuses on the decades long effort on helping people not kill themselves or kill others with or without guns. Why is it OK to let these people die?


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

Very true, in 99.95% of the cases, no person, the gun will kill nobody. But, in 100% of the cases, no gun or bullet (assuming the gun doesn't become a club) the gun kills nobody. BOTH must be present.

bm:

gun is used to kill person

person is killed but not from gun.

If P then Q

is not reversable to If Q then P

===========

You wrote

As far as criminal behavior of goes, of course it is a combination of nurture and nature that results in a bad person;

bm:

There is no proof for that statement.

------------------

You wrote

but that is not the issue, not even close. The issue is what FACILITATES bad behavior and all of those things mentioned in the hub do that for some people.

bm:

Again, your conclusion but not a fact. It is more likely that people are bad. Again, the same ghetto produces the cop and the criminal.

-------------

You wrote

You have a good point in "helping the people". but it will do more harm by not simultaneously doing something about the proliferation of legal guns which is known to increase the number of deaths by gun.

bm:

Again, your conclusion, but not a fact.

The percentage among legal gun owners is so small that it is an anomaly to tie the legality of the gun ownership to the gun death. The anomaly would more likely be associated with the person, and certainly not the gun.

-----------

You wrote

What you propose is to let those people who die because of loose gun regulations die while everyone focuses on the decades long effort on helping people not kill themselves or kill others with or without guns. Why is it OK to let these people die?

bm:

Finding and helping the cause of why people commit suicide is the larger sphere, as their methods include but are not limited to the use of guns.

As for solving gun deaths by tinkering with legal guns, that would be more of a low odds gamble.

Gangs and criminals will get their guns illegally like booze during prohibition. It will give the gangs another illegal product to sell.

We already know that people, drugs, and guns are being smuggled into the country in large numbers.

Everyone one thinks that securing the border is mainly for preventing the poor illegal alien from finding jobs in the US, but the bigger issue is the gang activity, and terrorists. It only took 19 of them to make 911 happen.

Even if people didn't have guns at all, they could still commit suicide by a gun. The gun would be in the hands of a police officer.

-------------

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You wrote "As far as criminal behavior of goes, of course it is a combination of nurture and nature that results in a bad person; bm: There is no proof for that statement.

- Of course there is. For example, scopathy has been found to be a genetic brain disorder. I will find you the citation.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

So that means that you agree with all my other statements in my previous comment.

Thanks


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Bradmaster. Problems is, it is "If P Then Q. Instead it is 'p' U 'q' U 'w'. It is the intersection of p, q, and w that are death by guns where:

p = # of people who kill others

q = # of guns used by people

w = # of deaths by guns.

The resulting area inside the intersection of those three sets is the # of people with guns who killed people (or themselves).


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Nope, just haven't got to them yet.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You said, "Gangs and criminals will get their guns illegally ...". Again, my study is concerned with what can be influenced most quickly, legal guns. Illegal guns (which is a small source of guns used by criminals; legal sources are much more common) is an entirely different study


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You said, "which is known to increase the number of deaths by gun. - bm:

Again, your conclusion, but not a fact."

What if I told you 1 + 1 = 2 is not a fact? Or, as I once did before, "The sun will rise tomorrow from the East" is not a fact. What does that say about your statement "... but not a fact."?


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

1. My example is in symbolic logic not math And as such it is correct.

2. Using the base ten, then 1 plus 1 equals 2 is a fact.

3. I already answered by Sun question. I

t is a question of probability that is not dependent on social behavior. My point is when we deal with human nature there is no basis in physics what will happen. There are some common human traits that can be used for guessing the probability of human decision, but you wouldn't want to live or die on it.

Using your knowledge of statistics, probabilities, and human nature what would you expect the results of even a total no legal guns in America. Not for guns only, but for the entire spectrum of homicides?

Now compare that with going after the illegal guns and the criminals like those in the drug cartel. Also, in Los Angeles the gang problem there kills innocent people and children from stray bullets. There are also a number of deaths yearly as a result of police shootings, including those where the alleged criminal was unarmed.

With the limited money and resources of law enforcement wouldn't going after the known gangs, and criminals provide a better yield, than trying to interpolate the use of the legal guns.

The problem for your solution is that there are already hundreds of millions of guns already in the hands of people.

I really lost your point here.

Sorry


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

"Guns don't kill people", "movies don't make people insane", "video games don't turn our children into criminals" are all true in their strictest meaning,

bm:

All true and in the strictest meaning is hardly true, much less a fact.

All three of these premises remove the person from the action.

It is the person that makes the final decision if they are normal, and a malfunctioning brain activity if they are not normal.

In the strictest meaning would imply that everyone that has a gun want to kill, and every one that watches a violent movie or video game is then provoked into violence and killing.

Even the most liberal reading of statistic won't corroborate these conclusions.

Islamic terrorists have a propensity to kill, maim, and injure non terrorists, yet they don't prefer guns, nor do they watch violent movies or video games. They do these things for other reasons, yet they are still deadly.

Thanks

bradmasterOC


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

ME wrote "You wrote

' "Guns don't kill people", "movies don't make people insane", "video games don't turn our children into criminals" are all true in their strictest meaning,'

The point was, that in the 'general' meaning "they do". Guns provide one of the means to kill people, without guns, people wouldn't use them to kill and deaths by gun would drop to zero AND total deaths would drop because there are many people who can't kill up close and personal like with knives, hammers, or their hands.

Violent movies and video games don't drive people insane or make them criminals, but they do (and statistics show this) do motivate the suggestible to do criminal acts (it puts the idea in their head or says it is OK) or, for those mentally unstable, push some of them over the edge. Absent the violent movies and video games, the rates would decrease, and yes, statistics show that to.

How do you do that? You take a large data set of the population, divide them between those who watch a lot of violence and those that don't. Then 'control for all the other variables' through multiple regression and see if there is a statistically significant difference between the target rates in the two populations. (that is similar to what I did with my gun study)


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

My response is in my comment which is two previous from this one.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

Good, you didn't fall for it, but for 1 + 1 to equal 2 it must be qualified that it isn't in base 2. Just saying 1 + 1 = 2 isn't factual without the qualifier.

All behavior, human and physics is a probability function because it is all subject to the foibles of quantum mechanics. Not all human behavior can be estimated because the variables are too complex for our understanding as of today; it doesn't mean they won't be in the future.

However, as they pertain to deaths caused by the use of guns, they are quite predictable, given the right set of variables; the strength or state regulations being one of them. Others are population density, the rate of legal gun ownership, how democratic the state legislature is, the level of education as measured by post graduate degrees, two measures of state population and urban population, and finally the size of the state.

When you put all of those variables together, all of which, by the way, have a logical connection to issue of death by gun, then you end up with a nice significant formula that has a high R-squared and F-statistic.

You may chose not to believe it, but those who understand statistical analysis to believe. The only thing left to discussion is my particular use and analysis of the data; the methodology is solid.

The question being asked is what are the variables, if any, that describes the relationship between the rate of legal gun ownership and the rate of death by gun. Your IF - THEN formulation simply doesn't describe the question being asked. The formulation is as I offered, the intersection of three population sets and the variables, along with their coefficients, determine what is in the intersection of the three sets.

You said "With the limited money and resources of law enforcement wouldn't going after the known gangs, and criminals provide a better yield, than trying to interpolate the use of the legal guns." - I ask, what is the cost of changing regulations? I would think very small, by comparison and can be done very quickly. Further, doing so does save lives while other ideas are being implemented. I want to save those lives, don't you? Therefore, I also ask, why can't they be changed in tandem?


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

You said "The problem for your solution is that there are already hundreds of millions of guns already in the hands of people." - and I ask, "So what? What difference does that make?"

You asked "Using your knowledge of statistics, probabilities, and human nature what would you expect the results of even a total no legal guns in America. Not for guns only, but for the entire spectrum of homicides?" -

I think I understand your question; it is the "... results of even a total no legal ..." that is causing confusion. But, assuming you meant that the impossible happened and the 2nd Amendment was rescinded, what do I think would be the result for all homicides (which includes suicides).

I think it would be this:

- A very slow but steady decrease in overall homicides until they approach the low level seen in Europe.

- An increase in armed (illegal gun or other weapon) robbery

- A slow, but slight increase in homicides from illegal guns and maybe other weapons.

I say slow, because it will take a very long time for the stock of legal guns already out there (I am presuming they were confiscated) to diminish. But, once again, this can't happen because the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere, ever.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

All behavior, human and physics is a probability function because it is all subject to the foibles of quantum mechanics. Not all human behavior can be estimated because the variables are too complex for our understanding as of today; it doesn't mean they won't be in the future.

bm:

While the body and the brain may technically be under the laws of quantum mechanics at sub atomic level, it plays only a small part of human nature. The reason that physics is a hard science and psychology is a soft science is because of the numerous choice that the brain can make moment to moment.

While there is a herd complex among humans, like voting, depending on the circumstances people can be unpredictable. You never know what variable or event will trigger an abnormal, or deviant reaction.

Sampling a batch of manufactured products for defects is an excellent use of statistics because they all came from the same process, and materials. So, any defect can be systemic of the process at a particular time.

To use that same method on humans doesn't give the same yield. Two people living in the same environment can have different reactions and results.

-------

You wrote

However, as they pertain to deaths caused by the use of guns, they are quite predictable, given the right set of variables; the strength or state regulations being one of them. Others are population density, the rate of legal gun ownership, how democratic the state legislature is, the level of education as measured by post graduate degrees, two measures of state population and urban population, and finally the size of the state.

When you put all of those variables together, all of which, by the way, have a logical connection to issue of death by gun, then you end up with a nice significant formula that has a high R-squared and F-statistic.

You may chose not to believe it, but those who understand statistical analysis to believe. The only thing left to discussion is my particular use and analysis of the data; the methodology is solid.

bm:

Human nature has propensities, and even economics uses that word. And it is unlike a manufacturing process which is totally deterministic.

I have worked in computers most of my working life, and I know how much data can be acquired most even the simplest data mining. The data may be accurate, but to present the data is more of a subjective than objective operation. The computer can produce enormous amounts of data from the acquired data, and present it based on how the author wants the data to represent.

This kind of manipulation with data couldn't be done before computers were in the mainstay. My opinion on the so called accuracy of voting polls is more couple to the herd effect, than the accuracy of the poll.

That is many people want to be popular, and they avoid controversy so they pick the apparent winning side.

That, I believe is how many people started smoking, to be in the crowd.

Once in the smoking crowd, they truly become addicted. At that point, statistics are more reliable because the addiction has predictable behaviors.

---------

You wrote

The question being asked is what are the variables, if any, that describes the relationship between the rate of legal gun ownership and the rate of death by gun. Your IF - THEN formulation simply doesn't describe the question being asked. The formulation is as I offered, the intersection of three population sets and the variables, along with their coefficients, determine what is in the intersection of the three sets.

bm:

It does if you understand symbolic logic.

The number of deaths from guns based on the super small percentage becomes an anomaly. The root cause of half the gun deaths are suicide. The course of action to stem those deaths rests on finding and solving the reason for suicide, and not legal ownership of guns, in my opinion.

---------

You wrote

You said "With the limited money and resources of law enforcement wouldn't going after the known gangs, and criminals provide a better yield, than trying to interpolate the use of the legal guns." - I ask, what is the cost of changing regulations? I would think very small, by comparison and can be done very quickly.

bm:

The problem is getting the change to the legislation, and this attempt has been going on unsuccessfully for several decades During that same time the known gang problem, and the rise of the products from the drug cartels has increased to the point the government is losing the battle.

Congress has failed to protect our borders from these illegal operations, that even include child trafficking. This is no longer the era of the cold war, and protecting the border is not solely to prevent illegal aliens from crossing it to find work. Today, the prime importance of securing the border is to protect the people of the US from the drugs, and terrorists which are accompanied by violence and killings.

We also have gang and drug problems in most large urban areas. It is these areas that have major turf wars, and gang killings.

What you are proposing pales in comparison.

Once again, I have to say that the root cause is the person. If the people didn't use drugs then drugs wouldn't be a criminal activity. You could probably use statistics to show that an increase in illegal drugs, produces more violent crimes and killings.

--------

You wrote

Further, doing so does save lives while other ideas are being implemented. I want to save those lives, don't you? Therefore, I also ask, why can't they be changed in tandem?

bm:

Asked and answered above.

---------


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

You wrote

You said "The problem for your solution is that there are already hundreds of millions of guns already in the hands of people." - and I ask, "So what? What difference does that make?"

bm:

You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube.

-----------------

You wrote

You asked "Using your knowledge of statistics, probabilities, and human nature what would you expect the results of even a total no legal guns in America. Not for guns only, but for the entire spectrum of homicides?" -

I think I understand your question; it is the "... results of even a total no legal ..." that is causing confusion. But, assuming you meant that the impossible happened and the 2nd Amendment was rescinded, what do I think would be the result for all homicides (which includes suicides).

I think it would be this:

- A very slow but steady decrease in overall homicides until they approach the low level seen in Europe.

bm:

We are not Europeans, and I suspect that it is more likely that there will be more illegal guns to replace the once legal ones. The results will be similar to prohibition.

-----------

You wrote

- An increase in armed (illegal gun or other weapon) robbery

- A slow, but slight increase in homicides from illegal guns and maybe other weapons.

I say slow, because it will take a very long time for the stock of legal guns already out there (I am presuming they were confiscated) to diminish. But, once again, this can't happen because the 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere, ever.

bm:

So, the police and the criminals will have the guns.

And we know that the police don't have a gun record for shootings. The problem with the police is that the average police officer has not fired their weapons other than at a shooting range.

The average NRA member is more proficient at marksmanship than the average police officer.

Mexico has a very strict gun control, but as we all know the NE Mexico is owned by the well armed drug cartels.

In any case, how many lives do you think your plan will save yearly?

You have very low numbers to start with compared to the population of legal guns.

Like abortion, gay marriages, smoking, alcohol, and illegal drugs, these issues can never be resolved by laws. Creating laws is not the same as solving the root cause of the problem.

We have very strict DUI laws but people still drive while they are under the influence, and deaths from that are still occurring. People still smoke and die from the effects of smoking but the congress doesn't care because of the political power of the tobacco lobby. The same is true for alcohol.

The SCOTUS hedged the issue on abortion by not providing judicial notice of when life begins.

Gay marriage will never validate their lifestyle as normal.

The deaths and injuries from driving are equal to those resulting from legal gun ownership, yet no one talks about limiting motor vehicles.

Politics is the common denominator of why all of these social issues fail. The government cannot change social behavior. It can make legal things illegal, but that only changes the consequences. The jails, and prisons especially in California are overflowing. The punitive approach to changing human nature has failed. The law is not a strong enough deterrent to prevent people from doing criminal acts.

The death penalty has proven to be a failure in deterring homicides, and in California it costs millions of taxpayer dollars to incarcerate these criminals which usually die of old age instead of the gas chamber.

Many people think that creating a law solves the problem, I believe it only hides the problem.

The government has no solution for recidivism, and that is what keeps the jails and prisons full.

My point is that looking at legal gun ownership as the source of killings is like putting a bandaid on a cut. It just looks like you fixed the problem.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

To "You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube." - But you can slow down stuffing more in.


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Huh?


bradmaster from orange county ca 2 years ago

My Esoteric

Out of my eight detailed responses in my comment, this was your entire answer.

So should I conclude that you agreed with my responses, except for the toothpaste analogy?

Thanks


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

@Brad, here is just one of thousands of articles on nature-nurture and behavior http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC316330... this has to do with the sociophy example I used in response to "As far as criminal behavior of goes, of course it is a combination of nurture and nature that results in a bad person; - bm: There is no proof for that statement."

BM - "Again, your conclusion but not a fact. It is more likely that people are bad. Again, the same ghetto produces the cop and the criminal."

ME - Study up on Epigenetics

BM - "You wrote 'You have a good point in "helping the people" ... the proliferation of legal guns which is known to increase the number of deaths by gun. bm: Again, your conclusion, but not a fact. The percentage among legal gun owners is so small that it is an anomaly to tie the legality of the gun ownership to the gun death. The anomaly would more likely be associated with the person, and certainly not the gun."

ME - Sorry, but it is a statistical certainty with a 95% probability of being correct (that is the standard test of reasonableness)

In listening to the rhetoric surrounding border security, it would seem it IS all about keeping poor non-Americans out to preserve jobs real Americans won't take (OK, I'm being sarcastic) and not about keeping gang-bangers out; which can never do. The 19 got in legally, btw; but stayed illegally. It is THAT system which needs the most attention, in my mind.

- Most illegals who come across our southern borders take jobs real Americans won't (that's not sarcasm, its the truth)

- Most illegals pay taxes, especially Social Security and Medicare taxes which they will never use.

- Studies show the income from state and local taxes paid by illegals more than offset the services provided to illegals

- Once again the Right is biting off the hand that feeds it.


bradmasterOCcal 2 years ago

My Esoteric

I can't understand this thread.

Half of the gun deaths are from suicides. while technically a crime, shouldn't a focus in the cause of suicide be more important than how they do it?

The border issue should no longer be about the illegal aliens looking for work. 911 was executed by only 19 terrorists entering our country. In addition, the recent Ebola, and Meningitis threats should be warning to protect illegal entry that could create a health threat to the US.

There is no way that there can be an accurate report on the illegal aliens and what they pay in taxes, and what they send back to Mexico. How many SS and Medicare taxes would pay for a single visit to the emergency room at a hospital, which is free for them, but not for us.

There have been a number of trauma centers in S. California that have closed because of the drain made by non paying illegals. These non payments also increase the cost of medical services to make up the difference.

The bottom line is that the illegal aliens are getting free medical services, welfare, schooling and other benefits that most US citizens don't get. As for jobs that Americans don't want to do, I don't know what they would be?

Where are these studies?

Our jails and prisons are filled with people from Mexico. The Blacks and the Hispanics both have a big gang presence especially in the states adjoining our southern border.

The left is responsible for the entitlements and the looming problem that we are facing in our budgets because of them. The retirees under SS were forced to contribute to it. And now that the life expectancy greatly exceeds the initial age chosen by the great minds that created it, we have a money pit. The same is true for Medicare.

I really don't see how blaming the right solves the problems of the country. Neither of the parties has moved the country forward, and that is because they don't have the same goals. They will never have the same goals. They didn't have it back when the country was born, and they have grown further apart today.

This continual feuding has resulted in the decline of the US, and its people. Therefore, it is an example of how the US government cannot function under the concepts laid down by the founders.

Today, a new government paradigm must be found, and adopted. One that will give both parties equal control of the country, and to move forward they will neither the help of the independents.

We don't have this paradigm, but the evidence shows that we desperately need it.

The US is a democratic Republic and that means the source of our problem is the voter failing to control the people that they elect to represent them. Incumbents shouldn't be automatically reelected just because of their party. They need to have demonstrated that they did something, and using the excuse that the other party blocked them, just means that they didn't do their job. Their job is to work as bipartisan members of congress, or the presidency. If they failed to get bipartisan cooperation, then they failed period.

Protecting politicians under the umbrella of the party is not a reason to keep the inept, or non productive in office.

Voting Row A or B is more like faith, than using intelligence. The Row voting requires no intelligence at all, as the voter has abdicated that function to the party. Unfortunately, the party has only loyalty for the party, and not the people, or the country.

Making this voting process even less intelligent is the effect of the opining in the media, and this also is not intelligent thinking.

Another unfortunate thing about the voters, and people is they are the core of many of the problems of the country.

There wouldn't be a drug war if the drug takers didn't exist. In the last forty years the US has spent one trillion dollars fighting and losing this war.

There are more deaths, sickness and crime caused by illegal drugs than there is on your legal gun issue. The democrats keep making the drug problem worse. They continually try to keep Marijuana as a schedule one drug, but at the same time they do little to stop selling alcohol and tobacco. There is no reason why MJ can't exist in the same container as alcohol and tobacco using the same regulations.

This would allow the courts, prisons, and law enforcement to focus on the proven dangerous illegal drugs. There is also no reason why prostitution under certain regulations cannot be made legal. This will also free up the government to go after the more heinous crimes.

The government has limited resources to fight crime, and now many states are having to early furlough their prisoners because of overcrowding.

The government is search for the lost keys under a street lamp that they fabricated for better lighting, while they know that isn't where the keys were lost.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 2 years ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BM - "There is no way that there can be an accurate report on the illegal aliens and what they pay in taxes, ... Where are these studies?"

ME - This should answer your questions - it took me about 20 seconds "http://www.immigrationpolicy.org/high-school/top-1...

BM - "Half of the gun deaths are from suicides. while technically a crime, ..."

ME - Neither this hub or my ones developing a statistical relationship are about "crime"; they're about "death"; in the latter case, deaths from guns while this hub takes on fallacious arguments. Crime is just one reason people die from gunshots.

BM- "The border issue should no longer be about the illegal aliens looking for work. 911 was executed by only 19 terrorists ..."

ME- Again, those guys came in legally, as did the Ebola patients. If terrorists want to infiltrate the U.S. they can do it from the N, S, E, or W and you can't protect the interior from a 360-degree attack by building a wall around all of our borders. Ebola is no threat from that direction at all, it is only a threat via legal entry from airplanes.

BM - "Neither of the parties has moved the country forward, "

ME - You keep saying that and keep showing you how wrong you are. First, "parties" means nothing to me, "philosophies" do, however, because they don't change over time. Conservative philosophies have always held America back and Progressive philosophies have almost always moved it forward. (I say "almost" because policies like Prohibition were going backwards.) Rather continue to say it, provide examples of there is nothing about today's America that has not moved forward from 1787

It is important to blame the proper party (small p) because if they can be kept out of government, they America will be better for it.

With this statement @bradmaster, "and that means the source of our problem is the voter failing to control the people that they elect to represent them. ", we are both on the same page.

BM - "and using the excuse that the other party blocked them, just means that they didn't do their job. "

ME - that statement is simply ignoring reality. It's like saying the teller didn't do her job of protecting the banks money when the bank robber robbed her; it makes no sense whatsoever. The People need to see and understand one Party is stopping the government from working and therefore vote them out followed by voting in those willing to compromise.

People naturally identify with Party platforms because it generally reflects their own philosophies; that is natural. Blindly following a Party, however, is destructive and allowing gerrymandering feeds right into it.

BM - "There are more deaths, sickness and crime caused by illegal drugs than there is on your legal gun issue."

ME - "True, but so what:

BM - " The democrats keep making the drug problem worse. They continually try to keep Marijuana as a schedule one drug, "

ME - You're going to have to prove that to me, it is 100% counterintuitive.

Personally, I think all drugs ought to be legal to use, sell, and manufacture. That will allow 1) gov't to closely regulate the manufacture and sale, 2) bring users into close contact social workers dedicated to trying to help them to stop using, 3) drastically reduce crime, 4) allow police resources to be better utilizes, and 5) bring in new revenue.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 24 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BM - "While the body and the brain may technically be under the laws of quantum mechanics at sub atomic level, it plays only a small part of human nature. "

ME - That sentence inspired a new hub idea. Thanks. What you followed with, however, is only correct when speaking of individuals or very small populations (even there, though, the associated metrics would indicate how weak the statistics are). When dealing with large populations of people, while the variability may be higher in some many cases, works the same way as sampling a production line; and as with the latter, to understand the statistics of the former, you also have to understand the statistics that describe how good (or bad) the estimates are. These kinds of stats, btw, are ones you never see until you review the actual study.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 24 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BM - "This kind of manipulation with data couldn't be done before computers were in the mainstay. My opinion on the so called accuracy of voting polls is more couple to the herd effect, than the accuracy of the poll. That is many people want to be popular, and they avoid controversy so they pick the apparent winning side."

ME - If the people being measured are going to vote as a herd, then that is what the poll is reflecting and is as accurate as descriptive statistics says it is, for that day. Your supposition in the second sentence carries weight only if people are opining in public; polls by their very nature are anonymous just for that very reason. The probability that people are acting the way you suggest over multiple polls over extended periods of time is infinitesimal.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 24 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BM - "The problem is getting the change to the legislation, and this attempt has been going on unsuccessfully for several decades During that same time the known gang problem, and the rise of the products from the drug cartels has increased to the point the government is losing the battle."

ME - You conflated two different subjects. Trying to get gun regulations passed is independent of going after drug cartels and gangs. The fact that it has been so difficult to get sensible regulations passed is just a testament to the stupidity of the gun lobby. That characteristic in no way prevents them from authorizing resources to combat gangs.


My Esoteric profile image

My Esoteric 24 months ago from Keystone Heights, FL Author

BM - "You can't put the toothpaste back in the tube."

ME - Again, "so what?". I don't want to put it back, I just want to slow down more toothpaste getting into the hands of those who will smear the mirror with it.

BM "We are not Europeans, and I suspect that it is more likely that there will be more illegal guns to replace the once legal ones. The results will be similar to prohibition."

ME - What has "not being Europeans" have to do with anything? Europe has a low rate of gun homicides and I am suggesting that is what we would approach. Further, guns are not booze; guns are not addictive, booze is; a substantially larger percentage of the population wants to drink than want to own guns; guns don't get most people high, alcohol does; etc, etc.

BM - "In any case, how many lives do you think your plan will save yearly?"

ME - Since all it takes is to write something on paper, if it saves one life, it is enough. Now if it cost say $1,000.000 to implement, you get to the question, "how much is one human life worth in dollars and cents?" Do you have a figure in mind?

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working