I can't remember the source but here's my shitpost of the day from twitter:
"Fox News did to the older generations what the older generations said video games would do to us."
Printable View
I can't remember the source but here's my shitpost of the day from twitter:
"Fox News did to the older generations what the older generations said video games would do to us."
"Trump appoints Ivanka to head anti-nepotism task force."
http://www.cbc.ca/comedy/trump-appoi...orce-1.4042755
https://imgur.com/a/O1WyF
https://i.imgur.com/NMHzvNI.jpg
come at me bro
hmmm i dont get it
I think he's sayingQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Hitler + Stars & Stripes = Hannity
So yet another mass shooting. But it's not a time to talk about gun control yet again. Obviously, there is never a time to talk about gun control
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV5fXPVeZoQ
Well done for taking the bait Jack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Why don't we instead talk about lying authorities?
If anyone is taking the bait it's you, believing all this tinfoil hat stuff about false flag mass shootings to encourage gun control. You probably think Soros is behind it, and he's quietly been acquiring a monopoly on crossbows for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
America's already shown it doesn't matter how many mass killings happen, it's not going to affect gun control laws.
And if you are going to do a false flag, have your Manchurian Candidate go into a hospital for sick children and kill all the doctors, nurses, kids, janitors, and shoot a few balloons and stuffed animals for good measure. Then send another into a convent to kill nuns. THEN you might get the reaction you're looking for. A few shit kickers at a country music concert get shot up, big deal. Half of them were probably going to shoot each other after the concert anyways.
Fair enough. Sort of.
Here's the problem with all this conspiracy crap. I can sit here and say 9/11 is a crock of shit, I can make other similar claims based on whatever evidence I find compelling enough to sway my opinion, but when it comes to the who and why, every armchair conspiracy theorist in the world is absolutely guessing. I have no fucking idea how much of a cunt Soros actually is. I have no idea why they would tell us there's only one shooter when it seems there were more. If I chimed in with my opinion, it would be based on shit.
However, when it comes to the actual evidence in question, this isn't a matter of opinion. It might well be a matter of understanding, and in the case of the footage I've linked in the other thread (linked below for your convenience) they're telling us that the quieter gunfire is an echo.
Fine. There's loud gunfire at 0:05, followed by quiet gunfire at 0:06. So that's actual gunfire followed by its echo. I can buy that.
No more gunfire for 40 seconds. Then there's a quiet burst again. Roughly the same volume as the previous quiet burst. I haven't got a decibel meter out, but I would be inclined to think that an echo that has travelled for 40 seconds would be a shit load quieter than an echo that has travelled for one.
These points I'm raising are legitimate logical concerns with the official story. The conclusions I inevitably draw due to limited information are based on paranoia. It's important to make that distinction.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FR4xnBKGNeY&t=7s
Having skepticism about an opinion one comes to through emotion is a virtue.
The danger is that the illogical conclusions that are drawn distract from the logical concerns that caused the doubt in the first place. This is why it's so easy to mock conspiracy theorists... the conclusions often are batshit and worthy of mockery. But the questions... they remain legit.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
It seems Thomas Wictor and Paul Joseph Watson, two people I follow and at least respect the integrity of, both think that those who say there were two shooters are basically morons. PJW isn't responding to my attempt to engage him (no surprise), while Wictor seems to have fucked off Twitter because he's sick of it all. He might respond to my request for him to debunk this video properly when he returns.
I'm trying to understand how there can be only one shooter.
Wictor hasn't fucked off twitter. His on time is different than your hours and it's the same each day.
Wictor has strong opinions. He uses a mixture of data that nobody else is presenting -- and some of his points based on the data are likely among the most important that can be found today -- and pure speculation.
Fucked off in the temporary "fuck this shit, going for a beer" sense, rather than "fuck off forever" sense.
You might wanna check out Jonathan Langdale at langdaleca. I haven't checked yet but I think he is on the two shooters train. He and Wictor are two of my most interesting reads. Sometimes they agree, sometimes they don't, sometimes they're both probably right, sometimes they're probably not. Among their most strong opinions is Langdale is 100% in belief that the DNC killed Seth Rich and Wictor is 100% in belief they did not.
I'm 100% sure the Russians didn't hack shit. I'm pretty sure Seth Rich was the source of the leaks, but as for who had him killed, well the DNC would be the most obvious candidate based on speculation, that's all I can really say.
Langdale is a locked acc, I've sent a follow request but he only has around 2k so I assume he's rejecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
haha I searched by name, not @langdaleca... I think I know why the guy I've sent a follow request to has his profile locked!Quote:
Originally Posted by wuf
We know Russia has a near 0 probability of having done the deed since that narrative began as obfuscation and has never relied on evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
If Seth Rich wasn't assassinated, I would be surprised. It definitely has not been proven sufficiently enough that it could get a guilty verdict in court, but some of the evidence is quite eyebrow raising.
His primary account is private (and probably not even his primary anymore) because Twitter has fucked him over multiple times after he said mean things about some favored politicians. You can get all his important stuff from his secondary account (which appears to be probably the primary now).Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Yeah I figured they were both his accounts shortly after I posted, but couldn't be bothered to delete my post.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Hey wuf, it's taken me the best part of ten minutes just to scroll through two days of Wictor's tweets. Admittedly I'm getting distracted and reading some of them, but I can't even remember when he posted the threads I'm looking for. Between a month and two months ago.
I really can't be fucked to dig that deep.
Wait... a google search found one of the Poland/Hamas threads. And it turns out I meant Hezbollah. Forgive my ignorance.
https://twitter.com/thomaswictor/sta...00805904596992
There was at least one more thread, I'm sure.
The Japan stuff is more difficult to find. I think that was a passing comment in a thread about advanced munitions being used in the Middle East by the Saudis. I'll let you know if I dig that up.
I think these threads are hard to find because the key words I'm searching for are spread across tweets.
I used to think like this, but I'm actually starting to come around to the other side. It's actually NOT the right time to talk about gun control.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
There was an piece in the WP recently that explained the numbers behind gun deaths and the causes. Mass shootings are tragic, and terrifying, but they make up an incredibly small portion of the gun-related deaths in the US.
Some 2/3 of gun deaths are suicides. Another fifth or so are single homicides involving young men. Like, a guy shoots his wife's lover, a gang beef, a robbery gone bad. Things like that. The next largest group of similar gun-deaths are female victims of domestic violence. That group is pretty small and it's still far larger than the population of mass shooting victims.
The point of that piece was that the gun control measures being called for right now, wouldn't really do much to reduce the number of gun deaths in America.
At first, I thought, "so what". War machines have no place in the civilian theater. No one is really hurt if automatic weapons are banned. Preventing some gun deaths is better than preventing no gun deaths. So just pass the damn gun control measures!!
But like everything else, it costs money. Once you outlaw the guns, you automatically create a black market for them. Combating that requires more resources and training for law enforcement. It means more prosecutions, more incarcerations. Passing a law is easy, but enforcing a law costs money.
And anytime a gov't (or anyone really) spends limited resources, there is an opportunity cost. Spending resources to pass and enforce new legislation means that we have less resources to spend on something else.
So if resources are limited, we have to make choices. We could ban assault weapons, reducing the body counts for mass shootings. Or perhaps instead would could put our resources into outreach and support programs for suicidal adults. Or maybe we could pour more resources into curbing gang violence.
Is it possible that one of those other expenditures would reduce the overall body count from gun deaths more than an assault weapons ban? It certainly is.
We have to decide which type of gun deaths we want to spend our resources on. That decision takes cool-headed, clear-minded debate. You can't have that when you are in the midst of an extreme emotional reaction to one particular kind of gun death. So that means that the WORST time to have a debate about gun control is right after a mass shooting.
That being said, once the mass shooting outrage dies down, no one really seems interested in bringing up the debate at all. The last assault weapons ban went out 13 years ago. There has been plenty of non-emotional time to implement reforms. You can't blame stonewalling republicans, or the gun lobby either. Democrats had a royal flush in '08 and didn't do shit. Which just goes to show you that in the end, no one really has a vested interest in limiting guns in America. It's a concern dwarfed by healthcare, taxes, north korea, terrorism, civil rights, and a whole host of headline-grabbing government scandals.
If the aftermath of a shooting is the only time people are ever outraged about guns, well then their outrage isn't very sincere. And alot of this "we need gun control now" talk is really just thinly veiled liberal mudslinging with no real intention of bringing about reforms. It's just an opportunistic attack on conservatives
:shock:
I agree with every point you just made, and I am intrigued by the questions you ask, Mr. Stand.
WP
And some of it (from a minority) is a push to do what is required to control the citizenry.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
The 2nd Amendment is possibly one of the most positive developments in modern history.
The thoughtless case tends to be the case that eradicating oppositional strength to governments means that governments will then behave themselves. With no 2nd, protection of the 1st probably goes by the wayside eventually. With no 1st, the rest of the western world that merely practices almost-freedom-from-infringement probably stops practicing eventually.
thxQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Most of the outrage against guns is sincere (at least sincerely emotional). But the culture of outrage over guns possibly emerges from sinister narrative pressure. When a bomb blows up, nobody blames the bomb but instead the bomber. When a car is used to plow over people, the car is not blamed but instead the driver. Why is it different regarding guns? Perhaps because that became the norm, which was perhaps created by state-authoritarian ideologues. Given that state-authority revolutions are by far the most significant revolutions in modern history, it's pretty amazing that we've avoided the worst of it in this time.
Especially ironic in that the proclaimed current head of the political elite by "gun control" advocates' is their archnemesis: Literal Hitler (Trump).
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
A whole lot of overthinking in one quote
I'm pretty sure people would call for bomb control if they were sold over-the-counter with no background checks.
Some whatsapp chain message
Gringo reality
A customer enters a store in USA ...
- Please give me an assault rifle with telescopic sight and 4000 ammunition.
- Ok, anything else, sir?
- Yes, an envelope of penicillin.
- Sorry sir, but we can not sell antibiotics without a prescription ...!
The narrative that there are not already a bunch of regulations on firearm purchases (like background checks) is wrong.
Most mass shootings are done by using illegally obtained/manipulated weapons, and a ton of shootings have been quickly thwarted within seconds by concealed carry. Lots of others are thwarted by the threat of concealed carry. There's a reason why schools are common targets and rodeos are not.
I know reason is hard. Especially when it goes against a person's emotions and self-image.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Ok. Probably never heard about the private sale loopholeQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...gun-show-loop/
Ok, that's fair. Most.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But the second part of your narrative fits into the reasoning that you need guns at schools. I've heard that lots before. It's a particularly dumb rhetoric for a myriad of reasons.
And yes, people have killed en masse before without (automatic) guns. Degree of difficulty for a successful execution goes up quite a bit though
Yes, and a ton of people think that what they do is reasoning. But it's only partisans in glass houses throwing rocks at the other* sideQuote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
* = . whomever dares to think differently than them, even if backed with coherent, logical facts and historical precedence
Private sale does not function the way firearm antagonists think.
Not allowing licensed adults to carry in "gun free zones" invites killers.
Of course it doesn't. Nothing ever does, it seems. There is always very important detail(s) that no one sees, in partular the antagonists.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Now, care to back this up with actual facts? Non-anecdotal? Non-masturbatory pieces where the writers don't have to scramble to justify whatever narrative they have to rep and/or sell? You know, other than "Teddy said it" or "Vinny said it"?
If Vinny said it, it's probably true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu8tX2BAD1k
Also Wuf, when you keep accusing people who disagree with you of having a problem with their mental processes like cognitive dissonance or this or that bias, you're essentially making an ad hominen argument yourself, which is no argument at all. Just sayin'.
You're only saying this because you're too stupid to understand the subtle point he's making.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
I'm not. And I don't even know what conversation you're referencing.
Sounds like someone woke up on the wrong side of the bed this afternoon.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
What is his subtle point?
If you are responding to an argument by not responding to that argument, a possible productive response to your non-response is to point out that it was a non-response. I point out cognitive dissonances because they are non-responses to arguments and I desire to stick to the argument. It's a more illuminating way of implying "you didn't address the point" than saying "you didn't address the point" because it provides some explanation that allows the person to examine how it was that he/she indeed didn't address the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Implicit from your stance is that when a person has a measure of a motive to slaughter, threatening his ability to slaughter doesn't affect the measure of the motive. I (and most people) do not find that logical or credible. Do you find that logical and credible?
BTW Mr Doop I appreciate you expressing your concern on the cognitive dissonance thing.
To specifically address your claim that pointing out cognitive dissonances is ad hominem, I don't think it is. Ad hominem is when essentially you attack the person instead of the argument. When I point out cognitive dissonances, I have no intention of addressing the person making them, but to address the argument. It's like this: if you get straw manned, pointing out that the person erected a straw man is not ad hominem. Pointing out the straw man is useful to understand what is and what isn't addressing the arguments and it can help keep the subsequent arguments relevant to the original arguments.
The other day I saw a billboard that sparked disagreement in me. I went on about a ten minutes intellectual exercise explaining why the claim of the billboard was wrong, but then I realized my very first response to the claim was cognitive dissonance on my own part. That means that the rest of my argument was basically irrelevant. I was arguing against an illusion.
How does one go about solving for cognitive dissonance? It can be hard, but it's doable. Take a step back and address the claim head on, like yes or no and why it is or isn't true. Then if you want to make a different argument that carries with it implication that the impact of the previous claim is not that important, that's fine.
Simply just sidestepping the claim and presenting a new claim masquerading as a response to the original claim is how most arguments seem to go, and it never gets anywhere.
I dunno, did you actually take that post seriously rather than me attempting to amuse myself with irrelevant banter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Poopadoop
It's called the scientific method, which is a process for us to discover when someone is trying to fool us, even when the fooler is our prior selves.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Citing cognitive dissonance when it's appropriate is one thing, but throwing it around whenever you don't follow someone's argument from their own first principles is kinda douchy. It doesn't help the conversation to bring up tangential topics like their cognitive state and/or abilities. If the argument doesn't make sense, then that is what is dissonant, not the mind that made the argument.
I've corrected your physics a number of times, but never did I find it relevant to point out that you could not have a rigorous or complete model of your world if you believe incorrect things about physics. It's true, sure. Any statement which doesn't hold up to physics means that your mind is doing gymnastics to believe it.
However, I'd put forward that everyone bears cognitive dissonance, as holding a consistent and complete world-view is probably impossible for a human, given all the evidence I've seen. Our meat brains are not even equipped to deal with the stimulus they receive in real time. Brains actively ignore most of the stimulus they receive. It's called short-term memory. As in, brain is not willing to sort out all that mess for more than about a couple of seconds before it is overwhelmed with what's build up to pay attention to in that couple seconds. Which is, at the hear of it, why we need science in the first place.
It may not be a good tactic. I don't know.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
I know that knowing about my own cognitive dissonance has helped me greatly. And I believe that it is foolish to address somebody's argument from cognitive dissonance as if it is not. In practice, it has been a last resort thing for me. Once I view a conversation with a person as involving them ignoring my points and changing the subject while acting like my points have been successfully addressed, I believe I have one of two options: point out the cognitive dissonance or stop engaging altogether.
You're probably right, though. It would probably be better to simply point out that the point has not been addressed than to point out that the response is a tell for cognitive dissonance. I do the latter because that has helped me greatly, but it may not help others (especially when it's directed at them). So, maybe I won't use that now.
I don't think most mass shooters care about how many other people may have guns. I think most believe they will be killed before their spree is over. As such, I don't think the choice of location has anything to do with the level of gun control in that location.
However, I expect gun availability does have other influences. If it's easy to get guns, more shooters will be able to accomplish the first step in their plan.
Easier means a lot of things too. Your State may have tight gun laws like California, but guns are readily available since Arizona is right next door and is much much looser. Likewise the availability of gun shows or illegal dealers plays a part. The amount and ease of access to family or neighbors who have guns also affects it.
I wonder what JKDS' thoughts are on this idea:
Laws are to reduce the crimes that would be committed by semi-scrupulous people.
Laws cannot prevent crimes by unscrupulous people.
so, ultimately, the deep truth which the public at large doesn't understand is this:
Laws are not to prevent all crimes.
No system of law will result in a world (or neighborhood) without crimes.
My grandfather used to say "locks are for honest people"Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Does somebody who wants to kill a lot of people target a place where he assesses very low probability of success regarding killing a lot of people with the same frequency that he targets a place where he assesses a very high probability of success regarding killing a lot of people?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
A car audio system thief I once knew used to say "if it has an alarm, I don't even bother."Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
What do you mean by unscrupulous?Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Implicit from the principles we're taught in economics courses is that the only type of person that could be unaffected by outcomes are the sufficiently mentally insane such that they can't even know their preferences.
Because there were enough targets that were easier to deal with. I'm not sure it follows that if everything had an alarm he wouldn't bother.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
That would cause the audio system thieves with insufficient marginal benefit of thieving to leave the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by Savy
Look at it like this. Let's say somebody benefits $20/hr of value* thieving non-alarm cars and it costs him $15/hr of value. Let's say his next best option (the option he would choose if he wasn't thieving cars) benefits him $15 and costs $13. He nets more personal value by thieving non-alarm cars than his next best option, so he thieves non-alarm cars. But then people start installing alarms and he has to start skipping cars. Let's say that this makes his value of thieving non-alarm cars drop to $19 and his cost increases to $16. He still nets 50% more than his next best option, so he still thieves cars. But then let's say every car gets an alarm, so he has no choice but to deal with an alarm if he wishes to thieve cars. Let's say this reduces his benefit to $18 and increases cost to $17. Now he experiences 33% of the value thieving cars that he does by not thieving cars. So then he stops thieving cars.**
* Value essentially encompasses every bit of preference the person could possibly have.
**We know that he would stop thieving cars because each of the payoffs accounts for every element. If he were to not stop thieving cars when his benefit of not thieving cars passes his benefit of thieving cars, it would mean that the presented payoff structure does not correctly assess his preferences in the first place.
Criminal laws punish crime. That's their clear intent and purpose. It's hoped that they also have some deterrent effect, but the end result is punishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
You assume killers target based on maximizing casualties, rather than targeting specific persons or groups. You also assume he believes success or failure hinges on the number of guns others are carrying.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The kid being bullied at school doesn't take a gun to a rodeo because the bullies arnt at the rodeo. He's not assessing number of guns, he's not assessing whether his targets will fight back. At most, he's assessing whether his target will actually be there. It's the rare case where a killing is truly random, in that the killer had no connection to the scene.
If maximizing casualties was the prime directive, and given that travel is very easy, shootings would only occur in incredibly population dense areas. Not movie theaters in Colorado. (Note that even though Colorado is lightly populated, phx is only a days drive away. There's also parades, sport events, rush hour, larger theaters, concerts, and other places with higher pop density)
There's more going on than numbers. It's emotional and personal.
Standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
But it's a different kind of crime. On the one hand, you have stealing for monetary gain. On the other you have killing for fun or out of hurt or illness.
When large casualties is the goal of the killer, yes I am assuming that.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
He does assess that. In his case, concealed carry may be less of a deterrent than in other cases. However it would be a deterrent in other cases (Columbine type cases). In his case, there are other deterrents (like sufficiently credible metal detectors).Quote:
The kid being bullied at school doesn't take a gun to a rodeo because the bullies arnt at the rodeo. He's not assessing number of guns, he's not assessing whether his targets will fight back.
Note that here I'm not appealing for a policy, but claiming the existence of incentive changes dependent on relevant changes in variables.
I think it is pretty clear that there is never one impactful factor regarding shootings. Killers select targets and time and places for a variety of reasons.Quote:
If maximizing casualties was the prime directive, and given that travel is very easy, shootings would only occur in incredibly population dense areas. Not movie theaters in Colorado. (Note that even though Colorado is lightly populated, phx is only a days drive away. There's also parades, sport events, rush hour, larger theaters, concerts, and other places with higher pop density)
In economics, they are both thought of in terms of utility (preferences). It can be thought of like how stealing for a particular monetary gain may benefit somebody by 30 utility while killing for fun may benefit him by 35 utility, which means he will choose to kill for fun since it better suits his preferences.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
No. My stance is, less guns overall, less shootings overall. No ands, ifs nor buts. My stance is backed by numerous factual real world examples, including e.g. darling Aussieland.
Your stance, as I understand it, is gun-free zones, therefore places with a drastically reduced amount of guns, are targets for those with a measure of a motive to slaughter and therefore resulting in more shootings. Implicit from your stance, more guns would (in those places) result in less shootings (because of the implied threat of being shot during an attack by someone holding a concealed firearm). I personally find that not logical nor credible, basing my opinion and conclusion on the matter on other real world examples and historical facts. Shit already went down in other places, and institutions have already dealt with them with varying degrees of success.
Shit already went down in other places, and institutions have already dealt with them with varying degrees of success.
I ask you to back your stance with actual facts because of the aforementioned reasons. Why would you think such (an) illogical thing(s)? You, in turn, also find my stance "not logical nor credible", yet offer no actual, factual, verifiable example as to on what you are basing this opinion on. To me, it seems you are thinking with feel-good emotions and not with logic nor reason.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
You appear to be more concerned with detecting and referencing logical fallacies rather than with the actual substance of what is being debated
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This doesn't surprise me one bit, and I am glad you realized it on your own. That takes character; to admit being wrong to oneself after realizing it
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
I try to understand the issues first, try and see of historical precedence, what has been done to fix said issues already and which measure of succes said attempt(s) had, and try to implement tried and true solutions to solve it. Nothing is new under the sun; teachings are only lost to be rediscovered later. Like Damascus or wootz steel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Assuming the mass killer is rational. That's a bit of a stretch for mass killers. It's perhaps less so for serial killers. I hope you can clearly see why.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Clearly you've never seen nor read Minority Report. That's a terryfying all-too-possible future though
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Whenever I see this kind of reasoning, it makes me think along these lines
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ubris-disaster
Quote:
Originally Posted by j.ludendijk
And even better
Quote:
Originally Posted by j.ludendijk
Illustrating that his models couldn't really predict the one outcome which everyone else not bubbled by this kind of thinking could have foreseen like Nostradamus himself. And yet this kind of bubbled thinking, in the position he was, lead to infamous the crash of '08. And still, he was/is incapable of admitting he fucked up.
Theories are nice. The real world, however, always finds a new, undetected variable to throw into the mix, to make these social-totally-not-social theories baloney. So while they are nice, one is sadly mistaken to think of them as gospel. Which is why I prefer to observe, see where it has already happened, see how it has already been dealt with, and copy/paste said succesful measure(s), hoping to possibly add something better to the mix in the process as well.
Sorry about the derail. It got too long and I didn't really care about editing anymore. Carry on with the political shitposting
What of the person who kills for sport, and enjoys the challenge of it all? You're trying to say "ppl with guns deters other ppl with guns", but that only works with ordinary people...if it works at all. People willing to massacre Innocents are not ordinary. Their motives are different from ours.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Burglars tend to fit your theory. I live in an area with lots of snowbirds, aka travellers who visit during the winter months. Their homes get burglarized in the summer, because they arnt here to defend them. Clear case of opportunity...but it's because the success of a burglar depends on maximizing income, and minimizing getting caught. The only examples of deterrence working, that I know of, come from burglaries. (Gun laws, actually. By increasing the felony and punishment if a gun was involved, burglars carried guns less often)
That's not the case with other crimes. People are freaking weird, and do all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons. If a kid really wanted to shoot up his school, he's gonna try. Metal detectors be damned
Using the usage "massacre", how do they massacre those who can defend themselves? I ask this because I think the frame you are using assumes a type of preference that can be deterred. If a person is looking to massacre and there is sufficient reason for him to believe he won't be successful at massacre, he is deterred. However, if you are positing that somebody wishes to kill regardless of probability of success of outcome, then yeah they can't really be incentivized against it*. Though the casualties can be kept minimal through other means.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
The metal detectors deter the kid who wants to shoot up his school marginally.** Though it doesn't deter the kid who has sufficient desire and capability to bypass the metal detectors.Quote:
If a kid really wanted to shoot up his school, he's gonna try. Metal detectors be damned
*In economics, this would be somebody sufficiently crazy that they don't know their own preferences or that their preference is to have low success at killing.
**This means that a kid who desires and is capable just enough to shoot up a school when there is no metal detector, yet is deterred when there is. Not all killers fall under this type of category, but some do. Also, everybody falls under a "marginal" category; there are just differences in what is marginally beneficial to each person.
Meanwhile, in Texas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Ul6H6kagw4
I commend you for having a more sophisticated response.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Note that the referencing logical fallacies is an attempt to keep from diverting from the topic.Quote:
You appear to be more concerned with detecting and referencing logical fallacies rather than with the actual substance of what is being debated
It's a fine assumption to make since that's what we are discussing. If we are discussing truly irrational killers, we would be discussing a type that we almost never encounter. They would be sufficiently insane that they don't even know their own preferences.Quote:
Assuming the mass killer is rational. That's a bit of a stretch for mass killers. It's perhaps less so for serial killers. I hope you can clearly see why.
It's hard to find somebody more skeptical and antagonistic to economic thought than me. The utility scenario I described is among the most solid areas of economic thought I have studied.Quote:
Whenever I see this kind of reasoning, it makes me think along these line
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ubris-disaster
And even better
Illustrating that his models couldn't really predict the one outcome which everyone else not bubbled by this kind of thinking could have foreseen like Nostradamus himself. And yet this kind of bubbled thinking, in the position he was, lead to infamous the crash of '08. And still, he was/is incapable of admitting he fucked up.
About the quote of Greenspan, it's unfortunate he said that. Just yesterday I was reading academic literature that implies he spoke from a position of ignorance. Note that the claims I have made in other conversations we have had do not assume veracity in what Greenspan said. If what he said reflects what he believes, he was ignorant to believe that banks did not have distorted incentives created by Federal Reserve and Treasury policy such that they would rather take on more risk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Ok.
And yet mental illness is basically the number one purported cause when referring to mass shootings. A mentally ill person cannot be thought of as rational. Do you agree with me on that stance?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/
If we have to assume they are rational, then the mental illness and gun shooting relation kind of like shouldn't come up again, no? Agree/disagree? Being mindful that you cannot have a cake and eat it too
Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
The unfortunate part isn't that he said it; the truly unfortunate part is that he allowed it all to happen. Under his watch. He, and 99.5% of the others involved, got nary a wrist slap. The fact that he said this is just an indicator as to the WHY, why it happened under his watch
From the study
Quote:
This is not to suggest that researchers know nothing about predictive factors for gun violence. However, credible studies suggest that a number of risk factors more strongly correlate with gun violence than mental illness alone. For instance, alcohol and drug use increase the risk of violent crime by as much as 7-fold, even among persons with no history of mental illness—a concerning statistic in the face of recent legislation that allows persons in certain US states to bring loaded handguns into bars and nightclubs.49,50 According to Van Dorn et al., a history of childhood abuse, binge drinking, and male gender are all predictive risk factors for serious violence.51
A number of studies suggest that laws and policies that enable firearm access during emotionally charged moments also seem to correlate with gun violence more strongly than does mental illness alone. Belying Lott’s argument that “more guns” lead to “less crime,”52 Miller et al. found that homicide was more common in areas where household firearms ownership was higher. 53 Siegel et al. found that states with high rates of gun ownership had disproportionately high numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.54 Webster’s analysis uncovered that the repeal of Missouri’s background check law led to an additional 49 to 68 murders per year,55 and the rate of interpersonal conflicts resolved by fatal shootings jumped by 200% after Florida passed “stand your ground” in 2005.56 Availability of guns is also considered a more predictive factor than is psychiatric diagnosis in many of the 19 000 US completed gun suicides each year.11,57,58 (By comparison, gun-related homicides and suicides fell precipitously, and mass-shootings dropped to zero, when the Australian government passed a series of gun-access restrictions in 1996.59)
This, to me, is common sense. Sound, totally bulletproof logic.
Yet we need studies to indicate and corroborate it.
The examples we have are of rational people.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
I totally agree. Railing against the Fed fucking things up is my thing. There are serious problems in academia, government, and professionals such that they caused this problem then the problem was misdiagnosed by consensus. Things ARE getting better though. A subset of people have done a great service by pushing the remaining in the right direction.Quote:
The unfortunate part isn't that he said it; the truly unfortunate part is that he allowed it all to happen. Under his watch. He, and 99.5% of the others involved, got nary a wrist slap. The fact that he said this is just an indicator as to the WHY, why it happened under his watch
Makes sense since gun violence and emotionally charged situations probably occur simultaneously far more than mental illness does with either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
Makes total sense. Note that people who support the right for individuals to protect themselves don't argue against this.Quote:
52 Miller et al. found that homicide was more common in areas where household firearms ownership was higher.53 Siegel et al. found that states with high rates of gun ownership had disproportionately high numbers of deaths from firearm-related homicides.
Some parts of St. Louis are a killzone (roughly speaking). Using data on it and extrapolating leads to bad conclusions.Quote:
54 Webster’s analysis uncovered that the repeal of Missouri’s background check law led to an additional 49 to 68 murders per year,
How much of that is statistical noise, which is very very common given the parameters, and how much of it is directly related to new and unjustified stand your ground action?Quote:
55 and the rate of interpersonal conflicts resolved by fatal shootings jumped by 200% after Florida passed “stand your ground” in 2005
Makes sense. Mental problems are pretty much a scapegoat. I'm not sure how meaningful saying a place with more guns has more gun deaths is.Quote:
56 Availability of guns is also considered a more predictive factor than is psychiatric diagnosis in many of the 19 000 US completed gun suicides each year.
Just the other day I saw data suggesting that the opposite happened. I took that with a grain of salt since I know how easily datasets can mislead.Quote:
(By comparison, gun-related homicides and suicides fell precipitously, and mass-shootings dropped to zero, when the Australian government passed a series of gun-access restrictions in 1996.59)
Ah, so we agree that some shooters, at least, are not influenced by success.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Now consider this list of American shootings, and how many end in planned suicide...or end in suicide by cop.
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadlie...ting-rampages/
Also consider how the locations were typically personal in nature, rather than tactical. Their workplace, their school, their wife at a hair salon, etc.
These killers were motivated by emotion, not by deterrence. It's not that people may have guns, it's that the person they wanted to kill would be at a certain place and certain time. That's all that mattered.
I live here (in StL). What are you talking about?Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
... so the call for legislation to prevent this kind of crime is absurd, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
As typically touted...yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Even if every state banned guns, that doesn't eliminate the huge amount of guns already here. So long as they are available, you can't stop shooters.
I'll be dammed before blanket "no gun" legislation is passed though.
I also don't think we understand the mindbrain well enough for psych checks to be a perfect solution. A large number would fall through the cracks I think.
I have family that lives there too. Their description of the crime that makes St. Louis statistics look very high are concentrated in certain areas of the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The sufficiently insane ones such that they can't even know their own preferences. Each example provided so far has not been of sufficiently insane people as far as I can tell.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
This is a great example of the type of shooting that would be virtually uninfluenced by the kind of firearm self-protection I am talking about, in large part because success to the shooter is to die, and they shoot others only because that gets them shot. If we made people better able to protect themselves, then it would not deter this shooter. However, we haven't been talking about this type of scenario, but more specifically about the impact in gun free zones. If a shooter goes to a gun free zone seeking to die by cop, dying by cop is certainly not his only measure of success and he was looking for success at slaughter too.Quote:
Now consider this list of American shootings, and how many end in planned suicide...or end in suicide by cop.
http://timelines.latimes.com/deadlie...ting-rampages/
Totally. This is one of those coincidence things too. People who want to slaughter also tend to want to slaughter something "close to the heart." That doesn't mean that their acting out a slaughter can't be influenced. Let's say a kid is so mad that he wants to kill a lot of people at his school, but in every classroom the teacher has an AR-15 strapped to his chest and the hallways are roaming with police and they are all very highly encouraged to shoot any shooter on sight no questions asked. In that case, the kid who wants to kill a lot of people realizes he won't have success, and then the potential killer does not become actualized when he otherwise would have without the deterrent factors.Quote:
Also consider how the locations were typically personal in nature, rather than tactical. Their workplace, their school, their wife at a hair salon, etc.
These killers were motivated by emotion, not by deterrence. It's not that people may have guns, it's that the person they wanted to kill would be at a certain place and certain time. That's all that mattered.
Note that I'm not suggesting that the hypothetical should be policy (it shouldn't). I'm trying to illustrate why incentives exist.
Can optimizing self-defense and security and safety influence every motive and every action? Definitely not. But can they influence most? It certainly seems that way.
BTW if you don't like that I said "killzone", okay, I just really wanted to use that word (it's fun!).Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
The point I was getting at is that the high murder rate in Missouri comes from a handful of small regions in St. Louis, and that looking at a correlation between a change in a law and a change in the murder rate of Missouri doesn't tell us much about what is actually going on.
I agree. In fact I think medical and psychiatric "solutions" would be unproductive at best and counterproductive at worst.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKDS
What do you think the solution to this problem is such that the type of problem is fixed and doesn't reoccur?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
The Fed really screwed the pooch in 2007-08. And not only did they have no idea they screwed the pooch, but they believed they were doing the opposite and actually making bad things better. And showing how they screwed the pooch is really easy. They were just blind and ignorant and did things that textbook and consensus said was very bad. The Fed (and some other central banks like the ECB) were the cause of the 2008 financial crisis and the subsequent Great Recession.
How do you think we solve for this? Do we get better people at the Fed? The people at the Fed are already the best and the brightest. Seriously the smartest and most well-researched economists in the world work at the Fed. I don't think it's reasonable to think that having smarter and more well-informed people in power could have solved this problem. What I see as the key issue is lack of accountability. The Fed is a government granted monopoly. When it fails it still keeps all its power (indeed it even gains power). Its members never get blamed for anything (indeed they get defended for being saviors). So, how do we bring accountability to the Fed? Do we educate the people? Fat chance at that. Economists have far more education on monetary policy than is reasonable for the average person, and yet they are clueless about much of monetary policy and what goes on at the Fed.
The only solution I can think of is disrupting the government granted monopoly on money. That would bring accountability to issuers of currency, and in the competitive market that would arise once government stops granting monopoly power to one institution, the best results and the people who get the best results would rise to the top.
Actual criminalization of white collar crimes for starters. What we have now is a few boogiemen paying for every crime, while the rest getting golden parachutes and bonuses.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
This incentivises reckless behaviour
While I agree, here's the thing: pinpointing actual crimes committed regarding the 2008 financial crisis and subsequent Great Recession is nigh impossible. I've studied it quite a lot, and I haven't even come across actual crimes. It's hard to even pinpoint things people did wrong. Did lenders and banks do things wrong? Actually, no they didn't. The housing issue preceding 2008 was caused by perverse incentives due to government law and government behavior.* The crash and subsequent recession was caused by the Fed mishandling monetary policy,** which is essentially a mechanism informed by theory (and data and history). People haven't been charged for crimes because they didn't actually commit crimes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
* ** And there is a great deal of debate and uncertainty in the profession about all this. It took the economics profession approximately 40 years to reach consensus that the Fed caused the Great Depression via malfunctioning monetary policy. It was merely an accident or misinformed idea for which no crime was committed. The same essential things happened in 2007-2009, and the profession is slowly learning that the Fed caused the calamity again this time. Crimes committed? Kinda none. Accountability in these areas of policy theory won't come by making not sticking to one theory a crime.
I should clarify that when people are allowed to protect themselves appropriately, this type of shooting would not be disincentivized but the quantity of casualties would.Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
Has poop not come back since I jokingly called him stupid? Did I actually offend him?
It wasn't so much calling him stupid that was the problem it was the fact you said he was more stupid than wuf.Quote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
since im the second stupidest person in the world, things do not bode well for the doop
Nice misdirection.....but we all know that Poop is just one of your many troll accounts on hereQuote:
Originally Posted by OngBonga
Actually you just made everyone suspicious of you, because that's exactly what I'd have said if you were a troll account of mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by BananaStand
And I'd say this.
I'm fairly certain it's just been me and wuf here all these years, all the rest of you are his alts. I'm fine with that. I just hope it hasn't been all me.
:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by wufwugy
the second most stupid, wuf
But if he said that then he wouldn't be.Quote:
Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey
Trump is responsible for every random ass-hole now?
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/hm...yIx?li=BBnbfcL
Quote:
It's impossible to say if this incident is a result of a political climate in which some feel emboldened and not being politically correct was part of a major candidate's campaign, said Barry Burden, a University of Wisconsin-Madison political science professor. ....So I think if we think about the Trump era in that way, there definitely is a rising temperature in that the election of Trump has emboldened some people to feel more comfortable saying things to groups they think are not American enough because of skin color, language, country of origin, dress, anything else