HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » BainsBane » Journal
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU
Page: « Prev 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next »

BainsBane

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Member since: Sat Sep 15, 2012, 01:49 PM
Number of posts: 29,145

About Me

Epitaph: She was taken down by two hides for pointing out she found hurtful comments that focus on the failings of victims of domestic violence rather than the violent abusers who break the law. As a survivor of domestic violence, I do indeed find such comments hurtful, yet two juries have insisted I have no right to say so. When it is okay to say \"some women will do anything for money,\" but it is not okay to point out victim blaming hurts people, something is seriously wrong. If community standards truly do sanction victim blaming but do not allow survivors to talk about how they experience those comments, that is not a community that values justice, non-violence, or freedom of speech.

Journal Archives

You consider them irrelevant

because you don't like what they say. "Culture," as though a culture characterized by massive violence and drug cartels offers no distinction with your lovely home region of Wyoming. Culture, as you use it above, is a lazy catch all for a wide range of different political, economic, and social factors that vary from one place to another. There are ways to disaggregate that and study the issue accounting for variables, but that would depend on federal funding for research and reliable data to work from. Hence the importance of lifting the ban on research into and documentation abut guns.

I'm glad to have a bit of information about your state. I have no doubt you are fortunate to live in such a beautiful place.


Just because a government agency makes a claim doesn't make it true.

Fair point. But if you claim the original report is untrustworthy, so then is the secondary analysis of it. Generally, such critiques are based on a thoughtful discussion of research methods rather than simply not liking the results of the report. If you truly believe the report unreliable, you can no longer point to the website analyzing it. I will keep an eye on you to see how that goes.

sorry, you are projecting. You are the one distorting evidence for ideological purpose. More accurately, reading more into it than it is there.
You chose to insult my intelligence. I provided a fair assessment of the very source you claimed formed the basis for your views, a source you now proclaim to be untrustworthy because you don't like its conclusions. You have offered no thoughtful or informed critique.

Being inflammatory and rational may be mutually exclusive at the same moment, but not in the same person. As a human being with a range of thoughts and emotions, I like any other non-sociopath react differently at different times. A discussion board is not a publication. I have no obligation to fit your definition of rationality all the time. In fact, I hope I never do because what you consider rational strikes me as lacking in humanity. However, I am perfectly capable of analyzing evidence honestly and fairly, something you steadfastly refuse to do. I am aware of my biases, which is key to any honest research or intellectual endeavor. You refuse to acknowledge yours, which is far more insidious because it renders you incapable of honest analysis.

You want to believe guns somehow magically make homicide disappear and the absence of guns turns otherwise peaceful people into homicidal maniacs. Nothing will ever convince you otherwise because you don't want to believe anything else. You are desperate to justify gun proliferation to yourself. The rest of us are merely the audience in your efforts to try to convince yourself that the policies you hold most dear in life have nothing to do with resulting homicides.

Woooo ooooo oooo

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=&imgrefurl=http://www.politifake.org/paranoia-strikes-deep-paranoia-conspiracy-loons-politics-33961.html&h=509&w=640&sz=28&tbnid=R9GuX9RZ2vPmJM&tbnh=200&tbnw=252&zoom=1&usg=__5ITOQhegJiDcQTt6O1hFNIpI8Kk=&hl=en

The logical fallacy is yours

and a pathetically desperate one at that. Yes, some guns likely come from Soviet and Cuban supplied arms to Central America, but the US provided far, far more. Your entire analysis is based on the most desperate effort to prove the gun industry in this country has nothing to do with violence in Mexico and to cling to propaganda that you think enables you to justify gun proliferation. Obviously the truth means nothing do you, so you will continue to provide fraudulent information and try to pass it off as fact. I will just inform you that I will do my best to ensure everyone sees exactly what they are dealing with as you continue to peddle your lies.


You obviously know nothing about basic statistics or the scientific method. No sampling is ever comprehensive. 26% is a very large statistical sample. To ignore the evidence from that sampling and then claim it says the opposite of what it actually does is a nothing short of fraud. You would be laughed out of any academic discipline for dong that sort of thing. It's the kind of fraud that would ruin a person's reputation for life and might even puncture tenure. Ask Buzz Clik. I believe he is a statistician or works in some discipline that uses statistics.

If you want to compare the effectiveness of gun bans

Let's look to Japan and the UK, in comparison to the US. The same link provides the numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Japan. 0.4 per 100k
UK. 1.2
USA 4.8


The fact that Mexico is a failed state thanks to our insatiable consumption for drugs and arms dealing means that is not an example of what happens when firearms are banned. The density of firearms is high in the north of the country.

If you know the difference between secondary and primary sources, why do you site a secondary source that misrepresents the GAO report? Stratfor interprets the primary source in ways that satisfy gun zealots. The fact you can't be bothered to read the original report because you like what you see on the Stratfor website only speaks to your own lack of concern for the truth. The game of telephone has been so distorted members on this site now say there is proof 90% of guns in Mexico don't come from the US, which is obviously not the case. One need only read the introduction and subject headings of the GAO report to see that is false.

I never said El Paso equals white. However, race is a cultural construct. Firstly, Hispanic is not a race at all. It is ostensibly a linguistic categorization, but in this country has come to include those who speak Portuguese as well as Spanish. It's an awkward, forced category. Secondly, many Mexicans are considered white there, while we consider them a racial other here. El Paso, like any border town, has a mixture of people who identify as white and mestizo. The American side even has Anglos without any Mexican heritage, while the Mexican side has Indian migrants who come for work. That you don't see any Mexican or border resident as white is a function of your own cultural perception of race forged in that multicultural bastion, Wyoming. (No offense to your state. From all pictures I've seen, it looks astoundingly beautiful.)

If you'll bear with me, I'll provide an example that illustrates well cultural difference on perceptions of race. One of my grad school friends is from Puerto Rico. She had a crush on a Brazilian woman. At one point my grad school friend asked the Brazilian "How come you hang around with all those white girls." The Brazilian turned to her and said, "What do you mean? I am white." Believe me, differences of race matter a great deal in Brazil and Mexico, as they do here. Those who wield power in Mexico are overwhelmingly white.

I have a PhD in Latin America history from the University of Texas. You don't need to lecture me about Mexico and the Southwest.
Really? I find that really surprising.

Your view of my education is meaningless. The only thing I can tell you have a solid background in is distortion of evidence for ideological purposes.

I fully admit to being prone to hyperbole on the gun issue, but I take analysis and use of evidence very seriously. Intellectual honesty and my own self respect demands it. Anyone can pull odd statistics together in ways that suit their purpose. To examine a problem in order to understand it, however, take respect for the truth and intellectual integrity. I know full well when I am being hyperbolic or inflammatory and when I am undertaking a rational examination of evidence. Given the fact I am a recent victim of gun violence, I think I have a right to take the issue personally.

I suggest you read this post for an El Paso resident's take on the issue. It's quite informative, and I think it makes a lot of sense. http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023021983#post105

The ATF shows 87% came from the US, murder apologist corp. says 90% didn't come from US

Firstly, RW distortion of government reports are not proof. The concept of evidence is clearly lost on you. You must hear boatloads of evidence on Fox and Rush all day long. Evidence is not someone telling you what you want to hear.
The primary source is the GAO report itself. Not your RW buddies at Stratfor.

I've seen this before. They conclude those where the serial numbers have been sawed off didn't come from the US. The ATF says 87% of guns that they could trace came from the US. The rest only says they could not be traced. That doesn't say they came from elsewhere. That says the criminals and or illegal gun filed down the serial numbers so they couldn't be traced.

this is what the actual US governmental report said.
Available evidence indicates many of the firearms fueling Mexican drug
violence originated in the United States, including a growing number of
increasingly lethal weapons. While it is impossible to know how many
firearms are illegally smuggled into Mexico in a given year, about 87 percent
of firearms seized by Mexican authorities and traced in the last 5 years
originated in the United States, according to data from Department of
Justice’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).
According to U.S. and Mexican government officials, these firearms have been
increasingly more powerful and lethal in recent years. Many of these firearms
come from gun shops and gun shows in Southwest border states. U.S. and
Mexican government and law enforcement officials stated most firearms are
intended to support operations of Mexican DTOs, which are also responsible
for trafficking arms to Mexico.
The U.S. government faces several significant challenges in combating illicit
sales of firearms in the United States and stemming their flow into Mexico. In
particular, certain provisions of some federal firearms laws present challenges
to U.S. efforts, according to ATF officials. Specifically, officials identified key
challenges related to restrictions on collecting and reporting information on
firearms purchases, a lack of required background checks for private firearms
sales, and limitations on reporting requirements for multiple sales.

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09709.pdf

I taught research methods classes for several years. If anyone sites a secondary rather than a primary source for this kind of evidence, their work cannot be published in a peer reviewed journal. Secondary sources can be used only to analyze interpretation and reception, not factual matters where guns come from.

The absence of the ability to trace all the guns does not mean that the guns didn't come from the US. That means they aren't traceable. It is a logical fallacy to conclude that it constitutes evidence that they come from lands far away. The very best you can say is that there is not incontrovertible proof that those guns from the US, yet the fact the traceable guns overwhelmingly can be tied to the US makes it a safe assumption that most of the others come from the US as well. The ATF assumes they do, as does the Mexican government. The report shows that the percentage of guns that do come from the US have increased every year.

In the past gunners have pointed to Central America as an alternative source of guns. Their lack of knowledge of recent US foreign policy means they overlook the fact that guns in Central America were supplied by the US government in order to combat communist guerrillas there. We waged war on Central America, and the resulting violence in that region since is the fallout of the decommissioning of death squads. For proof to that I'll have to refer you to any number of publications on US involvement in the region: NACLA is one publication, and there are reams of books in the library. Those publications can in turn direct you to the primary sources they used.

Read the whole report. Just don't continue to falsify what it says.
You might also search ministerio de justicia reports for Mexico to read what they have to say about the gun issue.

I completely disproved that NRA propaganda

The idea that Mexico's laws are strict is a joke. The reason the murder rate is so high in Chihuahua and other northern states is because they are awash with guns. We're talking about a failed state because of the drug war and your friends in the gun lobby arming the cartels to the teeth. Have a look at this post about Murder rates in Mexico, which I will book mark. If gun bans were responsible for the deaths, the areas furthest from the border would have the highest murder rates, not those closest to the border that have the greatest access to guns. http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3044851

You may need to google a map of Mexico to follow along. I hope you can manage that.

Now, I have that post in my journal for ready access the next time you try to peddle that particularly obviously false been of NRA propaganda. Should you again repeat that propaganda, I will clearly demonstrate to anyone in range, jurors, and the administrators that you are willfully and knowingly promoting false information.

If you were actually interested in the results of effective gun bans, you would point to Japan or the UK, but obviously the truth isn't nearly as convenient as NRA supplied bullshit designed to promote profits for the gun companies.

Ban on research into gun violence must be repealed

From that bastion of liberal gun grabbing, Arizona.


SENSELESS LAWS ARE TYING HANDS OF POLICE AND PROSECUTORS, KEEPING US ALL IN THE DARK

How do criminals get their guns? Are there observable patterns to gun crime? Who is at the greatest risk of injury, or causing injury to others, from firearm use? Which gun-safety practices are most effective at preventing accidental injury?

The answers to these and other basic questions remain difficult and obscure in part thanks to a senseless ban, on the books for a decade, that limits research on gun violence and denies researchers and even police and prosecutors access to federal gun data. The laws prohibit the public disclosure of a gun's sales history, make that data inadmissible in court, require the Justice Department to destroy background-check records within 24 hours and prohibit the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from requiring gun dealers to check their inventories annually for theft.

A recent report from the Institute of Medicine, an independent, nonprofit research organization, details just how thoroughly Americans are in the dark. The report, commissioned by President Obama after the massacre of 26 students and educators in Newtown, Conn., underscores how little even serious scholars know about gun violence and shows how such ignorance jeopardizes public safety and health.

A better understanding of the "characteristics of firearm violence," the "risk and preventative factors" for gun-related injuries, and the "impact of gun-safety technology," the report says, would undoubtedly help save lives. By making reliable gun data scarce, the research ban has hamstrung police, prosecutors and public health officials in their response to an onslaught of 30,000 gun deaths a year.

Congressional opposition to gun data, which advances the anti-research agenda of the National Rifle Association, isn't merely a policy position. The lack of information has successfully restricted public debate itself. Healthy democracies do not resolve conflicts by stifling inconvenient evidence. Imagine banning doctors from studying cancer cells or requiring radiologists to destroy X-ray records within 24 hours.


http://azstarnet.com/news/opinion/editorial/ban-on-research-into-gun-violence-must-be-repealed/article_92ab48d7-f8dc-51fb-813b-21c23de41a62.html

Seems a logical conclusion to me

They advance policies that result in the highest homicide rate in the First World.
They simply refuse to acknowledge the consequences of gun proliferation.
It's like being a neocon cheer leading for war and pretending that casualties are totally unrelated. You all have blocked yourself off from the results of the policies you work toward, I suppose as I way to keep looking yourselves in the mirror. Meanwhile, the rest of us the country pays for that disassociation from reality.

Murder rate in Mexico

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate#Mexico

You'll need to click on "show" to open up data by state.

Chihuahua (the state in which Juarez is located) does indeed have the highest murder rate in Mexico. It's a horrifying rate. The highest rates in general are along the border and in Northern Mexico, which shows the correlation in violence between drug trafficking to feed American demand. The much higher murder rates in Chihuahua, Sinoloa, Durango, and Gurerro as opposed to the Yucatan and Queretaro show that your entire argument about gun bans as responsible is untenable. Most of the guns are in the drug areas along the border and in places like Sinaloa where cartels control territory enabling them to transport drugs to the US.

Indisputable proof




The number one factor influencing violent crime

Is the percentage of young males in the population, a criminologist told me. Crime rates have gone down as the birth rate has dropped.

Your link to concealed carry is wishful thinking without any empirical base. It's nice for the multi-billion dollar corporate gun lobby to provide such snazzy graphics though.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next »