Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You might be right on all the rest of it but I think it is generally acknowledged that Nixon was the most secretive President in the history of the United States.
That's only because we now know pretty much everything Nixon did and he wasn't being protected by the media. Certainly not the case with Obama.
I'm sorry you can control for income, race, or whatever other disqualifying parameter you like and there still is a causal relationship between the number of gun deaths and the availability of weapons. Political scientists understand that people like you will make such arguments and set controls to invalidate them.
Or would you rather continue to lecture me on my lack of "sociological" acumen.
No my home state of Vermont disproves that, as does the two nearby states of NH and ME. High gun availability, very safe places. I think a combination of excessive population density and a diseased culture and society lead to these crime problems. These killings will happen even if guns are banned here. Tim McVeigh didn't need a gun to do his dirty deed, for example.
So basically you are saying we just have to suck it up and get used to the carnage at a level that no other civilized country in the world would tolerate? Is that what you think the founding fathers were thinking?
If you're interested in facts, which you are not, you'd know that the US is not the most violent country in the world by far. Then there's the fact that that violence is for the most part concentrated in certain select communities. But then, you're not interested in the facts, just your agenda.
Cool. Find me a paper comparing the US to some European nation that corrects for ethnicity, education, etc.
Sociologists are like economists in that they suffer from physics envy, but it has to be better than making an argument based on two variables.
I really don't care if the well-known scientist 'CincyIU29' has a plethora or lack of acumen, but sure would like to see more rigor in these tug o' wars. I might even learn something.
PBS in conjunction with The Journal for Urban Health
Don't have access to a computer right now. Found this much in a couple minutes on a phone. Using an academic search engine I could likely find hundreds of corroborative studies. I went to one of the best political science schools in the country and have researched this topic thoroughly.
No my home state of Vermont disproves that, as does the two nearby states of NH and ME. High gun availability, very safe places. I think a combination of excessive population density and a diseased culture and society lead to these crime problems. These killings will happen even if guns are banned here. Tim McVeigh didn't need a gun to do his dirty deed, for example.
Anecdotal evidence that is not corroborative and showcases an utter lack of understanding of the difference between correlation and causality.
If this was true all high population centers would have higher rates of gun deaths. Yet Stockholm for example has much lower gun crime than almost any city of any size in the United States. It is also a very liberal city, low church attendance, and is quite progressive. Why does Stockholm have next to no gun crime based on your theory?
PBS in conjunction with The Journal for Urban Health
Don't have access to a computer right now. Found this much in a couple minutes on a phone. Using an academic search engine I could likely find hundreds of corroborative studies. I went to one of the best political science schools in the country and have researched this topic thoroughly.
Only one state? Your sources aren't adding up and/or seem to be making a very clear conclusion. I'm not sure how 3.8% could translate to a 15% increase in crimes. Seems like it's been cherry-picked.
Anything beyond abstracts available to a civilian?
All of these articles cite relevant academic studies and provide links to them.
Stop trying to stonewall here. Both you and I know the vast preponderance of academic evidence backs my point of view. Or perhaps you don't and want to keep arguing the "world is flat".
Why does Stockholm have next to no gun crime based on your theory?
I expect that one difference would be obvious if you walked the streets there vs. Washington DC, but that's just begging the question.
To take Sweden as an example, it would be interesting to compare a rural Minn. county with a region of equal density and income in Sweden. Are there available homicide and gun ownership rates down to the country level? I'll look at the FBI page.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
