Milo's post-Orlando speech, 100% worth watching

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

you can't measure "traumatic childhood" or whatever but you sure as fuck can get testimony on (maybe even measure?) "anger" or past violence ----- just look at security clearances, this isn't a new idea

security clearance is much more exhaustive

measuring anger is hilarious to propose, something like half of this website maxes out psych instruments for anger measurement

past violence would prevent people in poverty from getting guns to protect themselves since so many of them are violent in childhood out of necessity

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

security clearance is much more exhaustive

measuring anger is hilarious to propose, something like half of this website maxes out psych instruments for anger measurement

past violence would prevent people in poverty from getting guns to protect themselves since so many of them are violent in childhood out of necessity

security clearances do that, so

and I mentioned that looking deeply into the past probably wouldn't be fruitful, but a recent survey of violence would still be useful

if people are still in a scenario where they are violent and in poverty then giving them guns still isn't a good idea

[DaBackpack]

even in security clearances, if you get concerning results for some of the evaluations, a lot of times they'll require training and work with you

[Arch0wl]

security clearances do that because security clearances check everything under the sun just because, not because it's effective at actually preventing security violations

like, when you're the government, you can afford being somewhat picky about who you give this clearance to

with 300m guns in circulation, denying people for some anger metric just isn't gonna work

if people are still in a scenario where they are violent and in poverty then giving them guns still isn't a good idea

this is the most naive and sheltered shit I've read in this whole thread

not having guns in a shit neighborhood is like painting a gigantic "rob me" sign above your house

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

security clearances do that because security clearances check everything under the sun just because, not because it's effective at actually preventing security violations

like, when you're the government, you can afford being somewhat picky about who you give this clearance to

with 300m guns in circulation, denying people for some anger metric just isn't gonna work



this is the most naive and sheltered shit I've read in this whole thread

not having guns in a shit neighborhood is like painting a gigantic "rob me" sign above your house

1) is there evidence behind this claim?

2) at the very least what about restrictions, or even training, I don't know

clearly the system is fucked and needs amendments

3) then we should let everyone get guns? I'm not abjectly disagreeing with you that they need guns for safety but the end result is pretty much that "violence and crime is inevitable so give everybody guns"

I doubt that game theory / mutual deterrence works in a lot of these kinds of fast-paced, micro-scaled scenarios, because irrationality kicks in (especially in lower-income areas)

[DaBackpack]

you don't need to adopt the full security clearance routine (querying friends/family) in order to apply some of their interview methods at least

[DaBackpack]

I watched the video

1) He compared feminism to Islam, and lol

2) I must have missed the part where he talked about concealed carry, was it a small snippet? Just saw him say it was a proactive measure

I ask because it seems that most criminologists seem to believe that concealed carry has minimal effects in either direction on gun violence, and most of the support of concealed carry has been debunked in more recent years

[Arch0wl]

security clearance requires your drug test to be spotless.

this is obviously not pertinent to gun ownership.

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

most criminologists seem to believe that concealed carry has minimal effects in either direction on gun violence

I don't think criminologists would make this claim

plus, it itself fails as sniff test: police themselves are open carry citizens with beefed up resources

"violence and crime is inevitable so give everybody guns"

more or less

switzerland that shit

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

security clearance requires your drug test to be spotless.

this is obviously not pertinent to gun ownership.



I don't think criminologists would make this claim

plus, it itself fails as sniff test: police themselves are open carry citizens with beefed up resources



more or less

switzerland that shit

I actually sampled criminology literature on the topic, the most recent and most cited ones (from Google Scholar and my affiliated campus libraries)

both in frequency and in citations, publications with the "little correlation" conclusion are more than those with the "concealed carry and gun violence are correlated" hypothesis

And most research with the "correlative" conclusion had been refuted in more recent works

my survey was less than systematic which is why I asked if there were any breaking studies or w/e

I'm not going to compile a literature review on the topic but I actually wanted to see if rigorous investigation supported these claims, at least through a cursory look through the literature

EDIT: After such a statement I should probably substantiate those claims at least a little, but I'm tired and am not gonna do it unless people will actually read it

I do encourage people interested to conduct similar searches through academic journals instead of public news outlets

[DaBackpack]

a lot of affirmative studies have limited scope, e.g. "we have established a negative correlation between concealed carry and gun violence in the city of Chicago" but that's not a strong enough statement to affect policy

[Arch0wl]

frankly, there are far too many variables where a lit review of concealed carry correlations will allow you to make any conclusions.

one enormous factor is the culture itself surrounding concealed carry.

if, for example, guns are normal and everyday people believe it is honorable and valorous to defend others in an incident of concealed carry, then concealed carry will be effective.

on the other hand, if concealed carry is viewed as some weird gun-nut shit, then far less people will be tempted to reveal their weapons in a time of need. it would destroy most benefit to concealed carry.

I'm not making this up btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultur...United_States)

this alone is sufficient to make correlations not that immediately useful for determining what is effective or what isn't.

in summation:

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

frankly, there are far too many variables where a lit review of concealed carry correlations will allow you to make any conclusions.

one enormous factor is the culture itself surrounding concealed carry.

if, for example, guns are normal and everyday people believe it is honorable and valorous to defend others in an incident of concealed carry, then concealed carry will be effective.

on the other hand, if concealed carry is viewed as some weird gun-nut shit, then far less people will be tempted to reveal their weapons in a time of need. it would destroy most benefit to concealed carry.

I'm not making this up btw: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultur...United_States)

this alone is sufficient to make correlations not that immediately useful for determining what is effective or what isn't.

in summation:

If you're interested, the culture you mention is actually something that has been studied, with results of what you'd might expect

(I have no idea if these links work for ppl outside my school but so I'll cite them)

1) No correlation found between ppl voting for concealed carry and them actually carrying themselves (Concealed Carry in the Show-Me State: Do Voters in Favor of Right-to-Carry Legislation End Up Packing Heat? - Linda S. Ghent1 and Alan P. Grant, 2014)


2) A few researchers have formally posited that concealed carry working is reliant on public trust in guns (surprise), and went on to perform national surveys to gather information on such trust: results indicate that in general, that trust does not exist (I am too tired to find this one sorry)

anyway that's all I have to say on the matter

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

2) A few researchers have formally posited that concealed carry working is reliant on public trust in guns (surprise), and went on to perform national surveys to gather information on such trust: results indicate that in general, that trust does not exist (I am too tired to find this one sorry)

this is the relevant part, but of course you're going to get that result if you're using national surveys instead of surveys of specific locales. that much should be obvious if you've visited, say, Dallas and compared it to Cleveland or whatever

[rushyrulz]

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

distinction between critical thinking and chit chat is a total farce made by 17 year old mods who needed the category to mitigate conflict between 15 year olds in pre-AP classes

as educated adults, there isn't any real difference

further, I am not asking people to think 'critically'. I am asking people to think period. critically would imply the replies so far evidence some baseline amount of thought and I'm still looking for that.

And that allows you to totally flame the shit out of everyone who disagrees with you, right?

Seriously, Arch. If you're trying to debate this issue like an educated adult you need to be a little less savage and let your facts do your talking.

--

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

get the fuck out. you are completely and utterly full of shit.

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

do you really believe this rhetorical device isn't completely fucking retarded

Originally Posted by Arch0wl

this concession is taking you from "human vegetable-tier intelligence" to "capable of reading words on a screen."

Come on, man. The ad hominem attack was the straw that broke the camel's back for me. Making statements like these leaves an impression of "man that guy's kind of a <expletive>" instead of "he has a good point".

[HeZe]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

I watched the video

1) He compared feminism to Islam, and lol

Well he had a good point there

[adlp]

Originally Posted by DaBackpack

I actually sampled criminology literature on the topic, the most recent and most cited ones (from Google Scholar and my affiliated campus libraries)

both in frequency and in citations, publications with the "little correlation" conclusion are more than those with the "concealed carry and gun violence are correlated" hypothesis

And most research with the "correlative" conclusion had been refuted in more recent works

my survey was less than systematic which is why I asked if there were any breaking studies or w/e

I'm not going to compile a literature review on the topic but I actually wanted to see if rigorous investigation supported these claims, at least through a cursory look through the literature

EDIT: After such a statement I should probably substantiate those claims at least a little, but I'm tired and am not gonna do it unless people will actually read it

I do encourage people interested to conduct similar searches through academic journals instead of public news outlets

criminology and criminal justice is my major and this is a dumb statement to say. this is a good writeup

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/...nter-Final.pdf

[DaBackpack]

Originally Posted by adlp

criminology and criminal justice is my major and this is a dumb statement to say. this is a good writeup

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/...nter-Final.pdf

I would not call the Crime Prevention Research Center an authority on the matter

They have a strong pro-gun bias and their founder is one of the main researchers who advocated for concealed carry in the 90's

his research has since been disproved repeatedly

I trust the findings I found before because they came from several different journals

so, I'm skeptical

[DaBackpack]

I might take a look later and find out how they are getting the results they claim though

[Arch0wl]

Originally Posted by rushyrulz

The ad hominem attack was the straw

I have not made an ad hominem attack, much less multiple

your post is a civility norm proposal, not a true/false criticism.

if you mean ad hominem like how I think you mean, refer to: http://laurencetennant.com/bonds/adhominem.html

[top]

Is this why he was banned? Can u really call that flaming? Feels a bit off if ya ask me