Jump to content
THE BROWNS BOARD

America Has a Gun Problem


MLD Woody

Recommended Posts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

By the way here are some numbers that might help explain the amount of violence and crime and some of the countries Woody wants to move to.

You're welcome.

WSS 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, MLD Woody said:

and of the many bad takes from the Oxford shooting... videos games don't cause gun violence

 

chart_2.png

A very, very stupid graph.

  • Only three countries in the world currently have a constitutional right to own a gun: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala.
  • Six other countries used to have a constitutional right to bear arms, but they've since repealed those laws.
  • The US is the only country with a right to keep and bear arms with no constitutional restrictions.

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Westside Steve said:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/

By the way here are some numbers that might help explain the amount of violence and crime and some of the countries Woody wants to move to.

You're welcome.

WSS 

I don't have a subscription and can't view the article

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gorka said:

A very, very stupid graph.

  • Only three countries in the world currently have a constitutional right to own a gun: the US, Mexico, and Guatemala.
  • Six other countries used to have a constitutional right to bear arms, but they've since repealed those laws.
  • The US is the only country with a right to keep and bear arms with no constitutional restrictions.

 

 

Do you think video takes cause gun violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

I don't have a subscription and can't view the article

A revealing map of the world’s most and least ethnically diverse countries

Click to enlarge. Data source: Harvard Institute for Economic Research.
By Max Fisher
May 16, 2013
 

Ethnicity, like race, is a social construct, but it's still a construct with significant implications for the world. How people perceive ethnicity, both their own and that of others, can be tough to measure, particularly given that it's so subjective. So how do you study it?

 

When five economists and social scientists set out to measure ethnic diversity for a landmark 2002 paper for the Harvard Institute of Economic Research, they started by comparing data from an array of different sources: national censuses, Encyclopedia Brittanica, the CIA, Minority Rights Group International and a 1998 study called "Ethnic Groups Worldwide." They looked for consistence and inconsistence in the reports to determine what data set would be most reliable and complete. Because data sources such as censuses or surveys are self-reported – in other words, people are classified how they ask to be classified – the ethnic group data reflects how people see themselves, not how they're categorized by outsiders. Those results measured 650 ethnic groups in 190 countries.

 
 

One thing the Harvard Institute authors did with all that data was measure it for what they call ethnic fractionalization. Another word for it might be diversity. They gauged this by asking an elegantly simple question: If you called up two people at random in a particular country and ask them their ethnicity, what are the odds that they would give different answers? The higher the odds, the more ethnically "fractionalized" or diverse the country.

I've mapped out the results above. The greener countries are more ethnically diverse and the orange countries more homogenous. There are a few trends you can see right away: countries in Europe and Northeast Asia tend to be the most homogenous, sub-Saharan African nations the most diverse. The Americas are generally somewhere in the middle. And richer countries appear more likely to be homogenous.

This map is particularly interesting viewed alongside data we examined yesterday on racial tolerance, as measured by the frequency with which people in certain countries said they would not want a neighbor from a different racial group.

 
 

Before we go any further, though, a few important caveats, all of which appear in the original research paper as well. Well, all except for the report's age. It's now 11 years old. And given the scarcity of information from some countries, some of the data are very old, dating from as far back as the early 1990s or even late 1980s. Conceptions of ethnicity can change over time; the authors note that this happened in Somalia, where the same people started self-identifying differently after war broke out. And so can the actual national make-ups themselves, due to immigration, conflict, demographic trends and other factors. It's entirely possible, then, that some of these diversity "scores" would look different with present-day data.

Another caveat is that people in different countries might have different bars for what constitutes a distinct ethnicity. These data, then, could be said to measure the perception of ethnic diversity more than the diversity itself; given that ethnicity is a social construct, though those two metrics are not necessarily as distinct as one might think. Finally, as the paper notes, "It would be wrong to interpret our ethnicity variable as reflecting racial characteristics alone." Ethnicity might partially coincide with race, but they're not the same thing.

 

Now for the data itself. Here are a few observations and conclusions, a number of which draw from the Harvard Institute paper:

 
 

• African countries are the most diverse. Uganda has by far the highest ethnic diversity rating, according to the data, followed by Liberia. In fact, the world's 20 most diverse countries are all African. There are likely many factors for this, although one might be the continent's colonial legacy. Some European overlords engineered ethnic distinctions to help them secure power, most famously the Hutu-Tutsi division in Rwanda, and they've stuck. European powers also carved Africa up into territories and possessions, along lines with little respect for the actual people who lived there. When Europeans left, the borders stayed (that's part of the African Union's mandate), forcing different groups into the same national boxes.

• Japan and the Koreas are the most homogenous. Racial politics can be complicated and nasty in these countries, where nationalism and ethnicity have at times gone hand-in-hand, from Hirohito's Japan to Kim Il Sung's North Korea. The lack of diversity perhaps informs these politics, although it's tough to say which caused which.

• European countries are ethnically homogenous. This is, to me, one of the most interesting trends in the data. A number of now-global ideas about the nation-state, about national identity as tied to ethnicity and about nationalism itself originally came from Europe. For centuries, Europe's borders shifted widely and frequently, only relatively recently settling into what we see today, in which most large ethnic groups have a country of their own. That developed, painfully, over a very long time. And while there are still some exceptions – Belgium has ethnic Walloons and Dutch, for example – in most of Europe, ethnicity and nationality are pretty close to the same thing.

 
 

• The Americas are often diverse. From the United States through Central America down to Brazil, the "new world" countries, maybe in part because of their histories of relatively open immigration (and, in some cases, intermingling between natives and new arrivals) tend to be pretty diverse. The exception is South America's "southern cone," where Argentines and Chileans, many of whom originally come from the same handful of Western European countries, tend to be more homogenous. I was surprised to see Canada rate as more diverse than the United States or even Mexico; it's possible that the survey counted Quebecois as ethnically distinct, although I can't say for sure.

• Wide variation in the Middle East. The range of diversity from Morocco to Iran is a reminder that this part of the world is much less monolithic than we sometimes think. North African countries include large Berber minorities, for example, as well as some sub-Saharan ethnic groups, particularly in Libya. The diversity of Jordan and Syria are reminders of their internal complexity. Iran, with large Azeri, Kurdish and Arab populations, is one of the region's most diverse.

• Diversity and conflict. Internal conflicts appear on first blush to be more common in greener countries, which might make some intuitive sense given that groups with comparable "stakes" in their country's economics and politics might be more willing or able to compete, perhaps violently, over those resources. But there's enough data here to draw a lot of different conclusions. One thing to keep in mind is that ethnicity might not be static or predetermined. In other words, as in the case of Somalia, maybe worsening economic conditions or war make people more likely to further divide along ethnic fractions.

 
 

• Diversity correlates with latitude and low GDP per capita. The report notes, "our measures of linguistic and ethnic fractionalization are highly correlated with latitude and GDP per capita. Therefore it is quite difficult to disentangle the effect of these three variables on the quality of government." As above, keep in mind that correlation and causation aren't the same thing.

• Strong democracy correlates with ethnic homogeneity. This does not mean that one necessarily causes the other; the correlation might be caused by some other factor or factors. But here's the paper's suggestion for why diversity might make democracy tougher in some cases:

The democracy index is inversely related to ethnic fractionalization (when latitude is not controlled for). This result is consistent with theory and evidence presented in Aghion, Alesina and Trebbi (2002). The idea is that in more fragmented societies a group imposes restrictions on political liberty to impose control on the other groups. In more homogeneous societies, it is easier to rule more democratically since conflicts are less intense.

Here's the money quote on the potential political implications of ethnicity:

In general, it does not matter for our purposes whether ethnic differences reflect physical attributes of groups (skin color, facial features) or long-lasting social conventions (language, marriage within the group, cultural norms) or simple social definition (self-identification, identification by outsiders). When people persistently identify with a particular group, they form potential interest groups that can be manipulated by political leaders, who often choose to mobilize some coalition of ethnic groups (“us”) to the exclusion of others (“them”). Politicians also sometimes can mobilize support by singling out some groups for persecution, where hatred of the minority group is complementary to some policy the politician wishes to pursue.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, MLD Woody said:

Do you think video takes cause gun violence?

I believe there exist data/ arguments that suggest that it does. It's just that I have not looked into it deep enough to make a decision.

My gut feeling is no. 

Besides, you hijacked your own thread.  Are we talking about a gun problem,  or do video games cause gun violence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and now, "for the rest of the story..."

just S. Korea alone:

https://www.koreaexpose.com/how-south-korea-got-rid-gun-problem/

then, the obvious results:

https://endsexualexploitation.org/articles/research-spotlight/an-analysis-of-sexual-violence-in-south-korea/

https://www.koreaboo.com/lists/10-dangerous-cities-south-korea/

Yes, violent crime still happens. But if you look at a map, S. Korea is tiny.

America is very big.

In AMERICA:

FBI stats show 5 times more murders by knives than rifles ...

Rifles, as a particular category of firearm, were used to kill 297 people in 2018. By comparison, knives and other cutting instruments were the murder weapon for 1,515 murders in 2018.

 

so we have a knife problem? or... a FREEDOM PROBLEM>?

I'll live in freedom. The ability to defend ourselves in our homes.

Go to Australia, russia, communist china, nk, etc.....and see if you want to live there.

People come to America to be free. Freedom isn't free - and for a country to lose it's freedom...

that is tragic and hell on earth. That's why people flee, risking death.

We have societal problems - we are blend of cultures. That might be a reason.

But more likely, it's the fostering of free rides, ENTITLEMENT, and mental illness.

Every country on earth has problems. So, I think dirty politics and super ego corrupt emotionalism and entitlement is creating

a subculture of "my way or I will strike out against you" elitism.

More people are murdered by knives than by guns...and we "Have a gun problem" ?

just trolling by the left. "look at me, I have a controversial stupid take"

a lot of it social media inspired. "look at me, I say.do really stupid outrageous stuff to be famous"

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Gorka said:

I believe there exist data/ arguments that suggest that it does. It's just that I have not looked into it deep enough to make a decision.

My gut feeling is no. 

Besides, you hijacked your own thread.  Are we talking about a gun problem,  or do video games cause gun violence?

If people are apt to act out in violence, it's tough to say that violent games inspire it or not. Mental illness is the key.

Violence has been prevalent in history, long, long before video games. So, I think not. A lot of kids watching westerns...and the Three Stooges - none of us ever went around slapping, shooting with guns, .... that I know of.

and the violence in other cartoons. I have never read where anyone ever was violently influenced by Wiley E. Coyote's violent attempts towards the Roadrunner. And how many times did Boris and Natasha try to kill Bullwinkle and Rocky?

   Charles Manson was born in 1934....the first video game was created about 1982......

We don't incarcerate/exterminate every one who displeases authority. We are America.

Throughout history - look at the violence in the Bible. Reaching for video games is nonsense, I think.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

So do you all think it is fine to use Santa for promoting concealed carry... Literal days after a school shooting?

Or are most of you just going to jerk each other off over Alec Baldwin?

2021-12-07_102559.thumb.png.2c3d606ec8f6c8264266ef1bad35e86f.png

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, let's take a look at how the simple anti-conservative "gun problem" is a lot of hooey.

FBI stats show 5 times more murders by knives than rifles ...

https://www.spiritlifemag.com/facts-gun-violence-vs-abortion-in-america/
knowing that certain people won't open the link:
 
" When you have read and digested the following information, ask yourself how many children had to be murdered every day since 1973 to now number above 55 million? Ask yourself why every democrat running for president promises two things: 1) To take away our Constitutional rights under the Second Amendment to own and bear arms; and 2) To not only keep the killing of babies legal, but to expand the murder of children to include after they are born and healthy if the parent decides they do not want the child. "
 
" So technically, “gun violence” is not 30,000 annually, but drops to 5,100. Still too many? Now lets look at how those deaths spanned across the nation.
  • 480 homicides (9.4%) were in Chicago
  • 344 homicides (6.7%) were in Baltimore
  • 333 homicides (6.5%) were in Detroit
  • 119 homicides (2.3%) were in Washington D.C. (a 54% increase over prior years)

So basically, 25% of all gun crime happens in just 4 cities. All 4 of those cities have strict gun laws, so it is not the lack of law that is the root cause.

This basically leaves 3,825 for the entire rest of the nation, or about 75 deaths per state. That is an average because some States have much higher rates than others. For example , California had 1,169 and Alabama had 1.

Now, who has the strictest gun laws by far? California, of course, but understand, it is not guns causing this. It is a crime rate spawned by the number of criminal persons residing in those cities and states. So, if all cities and states are not created equal, then there must be something other than the tool causing the gun deaths."

*********************************************************************************

CONCLUSION:

A simple emotional manipulative one liner is not as valid as a complicated truth. anyone may quote me on that.

 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, MLD Woody said:

So do you all think it is fine to use Santa for promoting concealed carry... Literal days after a school shooting?

 

Santa must have a gig coming up in the inner city.

Besides, Christmas is coming up. How long should have Santa waited? Time is of the essence this time of year for him!

But seriously, days after a school shooting has no relevance here. What you did was take advantage of a school shooting in order to manufacture outrage.

Had the website provided in the Tweet made mention of Santa applying for conceal carry, then yes, you could argue that this was "promoting", otherwise many reading that tweet other than liberals would find it amusing, like I did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States_by_state

Per the link - the top two gun murder states are Texas and California. Political and gun control OPPOSITES.

The first number is population, the fourth is gun murders. California - 1275. Texas - 906.

Gun control is NOT the answer.

California 38,993,940 1,861 1,861 1,275 20.1 4.8 4.8 3.3
Texas 27,429,639 1,316 1,276 906 35.7 4.8 4.7 3.3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

So do you all think it is fine to use Santa for promoting concealed carry... Literal days after a school shooting?

Or are most of you just going to jerk each other off over Alec Baldwin?

image.png.08f7de8c76f9cbcb756f25539dd9338f.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, MLD Woody said:

So do you all think it is fine to use Santa for promoting concealed carry... Literal days after a school shooting?

Or are most of you just going to jerk each other off over Alec Baldwin?

I think Santa, your mailman, Kyle Rittenhouse, or who ever is entitled to defend themselves.

Alec Baldwin is a case of Karma being a bitch….enjoy!

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gorka said:

I believe there exist data/ arguments that suggest that it does. It's just that I have not looked into it deep enough to make a decision.

My gut feeling is no. 

Besides, you hijacked your own thread.  Are we talking about a gun problem,  or do video games cause gun violence?

Video games are uses as a scapegoat when discussing our gun violence issue. Dumbass CNN was pushing that take after the Oxford shooting. I brought it up because they're tied together.

But video games do not cause gun violence any more than ice cream sales cause crime (correlation vs causation)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Gorka said:

Santa must have a gig coming up in the inner city.

Besides, Christmas is coming up. How long should have Santa waited? Time is of the essence this time of year for him!

But seriously, days after a school shooting has no relevance here. What you did was take advantage of a school shooting in order to manufacture outrage.

Had the website provided in the Tweet made mention of Santa applying for conceal carry, then yes, you could argue that this was "promoting", otherwise many reading that tweet other than liberals would find it amusing, like I did.

You can take the school shooting angle out of it. Even then it seems insane to have Santa get a concealed carry permit. Who's next, Jesus?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Canton Dawg said:

I think Santa, your mailman, Kyle Rittenhouse, or who ever is entitled to defend themselves.

Alec Baldwin is case of Karma being a bitch….enjoy!

Someone died in a terrible accident. Someone connected to this board. 

And your response is "karma is a bitch" as you fall over others to attack Baldwin in an attempt to "own the libs"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, MLD Woody said:

Someone died in a terrible accident. Someone connected to this board. 

And your response is "karma is a bitch" as you fall over others to attack Baldwin in an attempt to "own the libs"...

My wife died 6 months ago in a terrible accident, I had to deal with it.

Baldwin got his jollies publicly shaming law enforcement officers forced to shoot people in the line of duty.

Now it’s his turn to squirm, see how that works? Deal with it.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...