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.
It's amazing how people will embrace studies if they fit their agenda even if the study data is secret and produces no verifiable facts.
---------------------------
A paper on mass public shootings by Adam Lankford (2016) has received massive national and international media attention, getting coverage in the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, plus hundreds of other news outlets spanning at least 35 different countries. Lankford’s claim was that over the 47 years from 1966 to 2012, an enormous amount of the world’s mass public shooters — 31% — occurred in the United States. Lankford attributed this to America’s gun ownership.
Lankford claims to have “complete” data on such shooters in 171 countries. However, because he has neither identified the cases nor their location nor even a complete description on how he put the cases together, it is impossible to replicate his findings.
Even when we use coding choices that are most charitable to Lankford, his 31 percent estimate of the US’s share of world mass public shooters is cut by over 95 percent.
It all boils down to two facts that gun control proponents
have not been able to address:
(1) There is a direct relationship between restrictive gun control laws and increased crime. Almost all gun control laws have been statistically proven to be linked to increases in crime.
(2) Criminals by definition do not obey the law. Using a firearm to harm another is already illegal.
Proponents might want to spend more time thinking about the facts, and less time writing about feelings that won't fix the problem.
"Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is a danger of oppression. In our government, the real power lies in the majority of the Community... Government is the mere instrument of the major number of constituents.”
Quote James Madison
The Second Amendment is in place in case the politicians ignore the others.
The United States Constitution (c) 1791. All Rights reserved.
So we are supposed to believe the study is off by 95% just because a gun advocate says so in his website.
Liberals operate from fear, and they’ve got an entire routine about people supposedly shooting family members and not being able to stop criminals, But people who want to take away your rights under the pretense of safety and security are really just laying the groundwork for tyranny.
In the end, the only form of gun control that works is taking aim before pulling the trigger.
“We suggest that people are not expected to be more fearful because they are conservative; rather, individuals who are more fearful tend to espouse less supportive policies toward out-groups, and this process operates through a common genetic pathway.”
Peer-reviewed research shows that conservatives are more sensitive to threat. While this threat-bias can distort reality, fuel irrational fears, and make one more vulnerable to fear-mongering politicians, it could also promote hypervigilance, perhaps making one better prepared to handle an immediate threat.
1. Conservatives tend to focus on the negative ...
2. Conservatives have a stronger physiological response to threat ...
3. Conservatives fear new experiences ...
4. Conservatives’ brains are more reactive to fear ...
It's so obvious to anybody (except probably the conservatives) it isn't funny. I mean, it's just blatant that that's what they respond to. Why do you think they want to be able to own guns in the first place? Because they'r afraid. DUH!
I recall reading a study where it revealed a lot of these so called mass shootings (three or more people) involved family members and suicide. Not as scary as public shootings involving more people who are unrelated.
It's so obvious to anybody (except probably the conservatives) it isn't funny. I mean, it's just blatant that that's what they respond to. Why do you think they want to be able to own guns in the first place? Because they'r afraid. DUH!
It's so obvious to anybody (except probably the conservatives) it isn't funny. I mean, it's just blatant that that's what they respond to. Why do you think they want to be able to own guns in the first place? Because they'r afraid. DUH!
...Using a large sample of related individuals, we find that individuals with a higher degree of social fear have more negative out‐group opinions, which, in this study, manifest as anti‐immigration and prosegregation attitudes. We decompose the covariation between social fear and attitudes and find the principal pathway by which the two are related is through a shared genetic foundation. Our findings present a novel mechanism explicating how fear manifests as out‐group attitudes and accounts for some portion of the genetic influences on political attitudes.
... To test whether conservatism is associated with increased reactivity in neural threat circuitry, we measured participants’ self-reported social and economic conservatism and asked them to complete high-resolution fMRI scans while under threat of an unpredictable shock and while safe. We found that economic conservatism predicted greater connectivity between the BNST and a cluster of voxels in the left amygdala during threat vs safety. These results suggest that increased amygdala–BNST connectivity during threat may be a key neural correlate of the enhanced negativity bias found in conservatism.
Substantial research concludes that favoritism toward members of people's ingroup, or ingroup bias, motivates people to oppose public programs that assist needy outgroup individuals. I argue that a gap in the empathic capacity for ingroup and outgroup members motivates and maintains ingroup bias in helping behavior and is sensitive to contextual cues that trigger anxiety. Using a novel experimental design, Study 1 demonstrates that anxiety exacerbates the outgroup empathy gap. Study 2 replicates these findings with an explicit measure of outgroup empathy. Study 3 shows that the outgroup empathy gap causes individuals to become less supportive of helping needy outgroup members. These studies suggest that opposition to welfare programs may go beyond simple prejudice.
And so on, and so forth.
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.
