54 replies to this topic

[TechSkeptic]

Bottom line, the causes of mental illness are not that simple. Genes and environment both play a role, and chemical substances such as drugs and alcohol can exacerbate a condition. In many cases, genes may be the underlying cause, but environmental factors and substance abuse can be the trigger. I don't think it that far-fetched to think that some chemicals in junk food might not also exacerbate the situation in someone already unstable, though of course research would be needed to prove it.

Edited by TechSkeptic, 25 April 2007 - 11:25 AM.

[maineman]

A study in 2005 in the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry looked at the genetics of "Conduct Disorder" ( DSM term) and anti-social behavior syndromes. (i.e. violent kids/teens). Using twin-pair studies. They showed a very high genetic link to violent behavior. You are right... just because you have a gene doesn't mean you manifest the trait (for some things). Certain conditions require a trigger - environment, diet, exposures, etc. It is naive, however, to simply "ASSUME" a link, by choosing random objects, like various "junk food" items that pop into one's head. Rather, statistics allow us to imply a link, when a link might exist and then we would proceed to rigorous scientific study. The task is ultimately daunting, really. How can one say, for instance, that "Green Tea" is good for you? Can you begin to imagine the study design and statistical maze you would need to navigate to come close to cause and effect? Likewise, blaming "junk food" for, say, "mental illness"? mm

[EntropyModel]

I don't have time to engage in the fun of a knockdown drag out gun debate.

None of us have time for that, but since we are all putting our points across, I'm doing my best to contribute what I believe in the short time I have available. So here are my responses to your major points.

..and I hve to say that I no longer care about the statistics. It's now an objective philosophical matter and all the various statistical arguments are merely handwaving, as far as I'm concerned.

I already covered that complaint last post. But OK, lets look at this philosophical, because I think the pro gun case is just as bad there.

BUT, since statistics seem to matter most to Mark in this discussion, I'll throw a couple out for further review

The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high and is rising, according to the BATF ("Annual Firearm Manufacturers and Export Reports" www.atf.gov/firearms/stats/index.htm), on the other hand violent crime has decreased 38% since 1991 and is now near a 30-year low according to the FBI (see Crime in the United States 2005 www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/ )
So, it would seem that MORE guns, statistically would be associated with fewer violent crimes.
Of course, it's much more complex than that, but clearly 4 million more weapons a year doesn't seem to be causing more violent crime. Accidents, too, seem to be falling. The last statistic I read was 0.2/100,000 and I suspect that it's even lower when mischaracterized suicides are included.

Anyway, chew on that, and I'll address this last point or two, and let you have the last word.

I thought statistics were just handwaving and we can't use them?

I believe science has shown statistics are a useful tool, but DO require alot of knowledge to use scientifically, and so are abused horrendously. My conclusion from 5 years of internet message board debates, and watching media, is unless people have studied science to at least graduate level, they should avoid trying to use them. Most people grasp the data, but don't understand scientific METHOD, and how analyse flaws in data and validiy of statistics.

Also, statistics do NOT matter most to me, it is just was the quickest way to make the obvious point about USA versus say UK i.e. similar society/issues/cultures/demographics/population density - but differential of 10+ times in gun related deaths.

As for for your conclusion, they nicely demonstrate 3 common statistical mistakes -
1. Is called CHERRY PICKING.
To conclude 'more guns' causes 'drop in crime', you need to check ALL the data, not just a couple of years that fit what you want to see. If you back to 1960 for example, you will see rising crime rates with rising gun ownership, therefore showing the opposite.

To be clear - I personally I don't believe the increases were due to guns, nor the decrease, I'm just addressing your point.

2. Is assuming mono-causality.
You have assumed guns are the only causative factors to crime rates, and 1. above shows that cannot logically be true, since crime rates went up and own during a rise in guns ownership, there must be more causal factors at work.

The study crimonology shows many other causitive factors - demographics, size of police force and allocation of police force to specific crimes, economics and in particular the economic condition of lower strata who are disproportiately high contributors to violent crime (the elephant in the room no one has touched)..there are many more.

To accurately determine the gun effect, the other effects must be measured( if 1. had not invalidate the correlation, that wouldn't be necessary of course).

3. Assumed valid data set.
Crime statistics are highly 'flexible' and political because nothing wins votes like falling crime (in statitics that is),. There are two ways in which data is corrupted for the purposes of comparison -

REPORTING&defintions - changes to procedures for reporting, and encouragement( or discouragement) of public to report crimes, changes in definition/reporting by ER for gun shots and violent crime etc etc

**But anyway, you didn't want to use statistics..so onward ..

So if 'guns don't kill', why don't we give everyone a personal nuke, presumably 'nukes don't kill', how long would that theory last you think?

Well, since we're talking about rights in this instance I'm going to have to explain why this is NOT a valid analogy. It misrepresents the notion of rights respecting freedom.

I have the objective (though not legal) right to own pretty much any firepower that I can use without violating the rights of others. No right can properly violate the rights of others. So, of course I can own a hand gun or a shot gun or an assault rifle and frankly a machine gun, because all can safely and effectively be used to defend one's rights. But a nuke, or a chemical weapon, or something similar all PRECLUDE the non-rights violating use of defensive force. You just can't use those things to defend yourself without harming innocents. It's virtually impossible.

Thus, it makes sense that we keep people from owning nukes and allow them to responsibly own firearms.

If you believe in self ownership, then you have to believe in the right to defend yourself and such a right cannot be properly limited by anything other than OTHER objective rights or the objective rights of others. The rights of the individual always trump the whims of the state or the majority for that matter. Anything less is really just another spin on "might makes right".

And really, how can any moral person live with themselves knowing that their actions precluded a good person from defending themselves from an evil doer? See, that's what it all boils down to. Some of us are evil and otherwise dangerous. Some of us are bigger and/or meaner than others. Some of us are easy targets and easier prey if we can't defend ourselves. To knowingly sacrifice victims is morally reprehensible. It smacks of "you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette". Or similar ends justifies the means type stuff--far to reminiscent of other murderous totalitarians or perhaps merely the typical prelude to such.

Mark ( the other other white meat )

I would agree with your argument if its premises were infact true, but they are not.
Lets start with this claim -
- OEX "I can own a hand gun or a shot gun or an assault rifle and frankly a machine gun, because all can safely and effectively be used to defend one's rights. But a nuke, or a chemical weapon, or something similar all PRECLUDE the non-rights violating use of defensive force. You just can't use those things to defend yourself without harming innocents"

This is one of those 'good in theory' but not in reality positions. In reality, no, you can NOT fire a automatic weapon at an attacker and guarantee not injuring any innocent people. It isn't even true that hand guns can achieve such accuracy.

But actually I was making a different point there with the nuke. The claim is made that 'guns don't kill, its bad people', that is, bad people would kill anyway they just happens to use a gun. That is nonsense as anyone with a cursory knowledge of crimonology knows.
Lets look closer at crime. A major percentage of crime occur for 2 reasons -

1. Crimes of passion - people kill spouses/lovers/road rage etc because of TEMPORARY LOSS OF CONTROL. Its easy to pick up a gun a shoot someone in that moment, it takes a second. But killing people another way is actually hard, and so the mere existance of guns esculates these crimes in USA to shootings from lesser crimes of violence. .

2. Mental Incapacity - something like 50% of all crime is alcohol or drug related. A large percentage of people committing these crimes are under the infleunce to one degree or another. Again, it that state of poor judgement it easy to pick up a gun and try to rob a store/person etc

So for a large % of crime the existance of guns contributes to crime.

But, even if it were true that your right to defend protected you, you only need protection because of guns!! So you are in an 'arms race' situation. If criminals start using new more dangerous weapons, you will be forced to in defence (since this is your reasoning), and even more innocents will die.

Studies also show ( i quoted last post0 that the defender often escaulates a 'lower crime' such as robbery, to a violent crime such as homicide.


You said: "No right can properly violate the rights of others"
Yes it can, any right to a weapon that can kill innocent people violates the rights of others, and guns do and can kill innocent people.

You are violating my rights in many ways -
- to not be shot be criminals with guns, because you insist on allowing wide access to them.
- to put my children at risk at school and other people's homes who have guns and don't make that known to me.


OEX said - "The rights of the individual always trump the whims of the state or the majority for that matter"
You do not have the right to own dangerous animals with permit, geez you cannot even drive a car without a test and permit. That is a vetting procedure that restricts individual rights, putting the state's safety first, we do it with nearly everything.

For guns, surely the minimum permit process would be more rigerous and restrictive than driving!


OEX said - "And really, how can any moral person live with themselves knowing that their actions precluded a good person from defending themselves from an evil doer? . Some of us are evil and otherwise dangerous "

I don't know what an 'evil doers' is, but as said, most crimes are the result of -
- temporary loss of control, a normal part of the human condition under extreme stress
- drugs/alcohol

Also about a brief study would show that VIOLENT crime is highly correlated to economic strata i.e. its mostly done by and too poorer people.

I'm really don't see what it has to do with 'good and evil', that's morallistic subjectivity that does not allow us to change anything - one cannot easily prevent 'evil' but I can try prevent the causes I listed with public education and policy.

Trust me I know it hard to tackle the causes of crime, but characterizations like 'evildoers' can easily lend itself to a mentality of - 'they are just a bad lot, and we are not responsible for 'them'. A study of history will show you how dangerous that mentality is, but I don't have time here.

But In reality, clearly identifiable causes can be found for much violent crime, most people are not born criminal, there is no criminal gene or inferior gene pool, that is garbage pseduo science of the extremely ignorant.[ to be clear, I realize you weren't saying that, I am just saying why I don't like phrasing things in those terms..]


OEX said - "..... ... Some of us are easy targets and easier prey if we can't defend ourselves. To knowingly sacrifice victims is morally reprehensible"
It would be morally reprehensible if you didn't weight YOUR risk, against the risk of others from your right to defence, which requires widespread access to guns with all the attendant risk to innocents via
- stray bullets
- children accidentally getting ahold of it
- crimes of passion/impaired judgement leading to higher violence level with gun.

Then there's the question of proportionality. Your risk of being a target of a crime requiring gun defence is extremely low.

I dunno', I came from UK and have live in USA 10 years. It would never have occured to me to own a gun, or anyone in UK, but we face the same risks of crime as occur in USA. That is because the risk is still low, I don't worry about getting hit by a car, dieing of illness etc or all those more likely killers - its just seems irrational to me.


Mark D.

Edited by entropy, 26 April 2007 - 05:33 PM.

[OEXCHAOS]

I was supposed to let you have the last word, but I had to address the philosophy a bit further. That and a couple errors.

[quote] I thought statistics were just handwaving and we can't use them?[/quote]

I didn't say that. I said that it amounts to handwaving to ME. I'm uninterested in the onanism of stat battling. I just wanted to toss contrary data to prove the point.

[quote]"I have the objective (though not legal) right to own pretty much any firepower that I can use without violating the rights of others. No right can properly violate the rights of others. So, of course I can own a hand gun or a shot gun or an assault rifle and frankly a machine gun, because all can safely and effectively be used to defend one's rights. But a nuke, or a chemical weapon, or something similar all PRECLUDE the non-rights violating use of defensive force. You just can't use those things to defend yourself without harming innocents. It's virtually impossible.[/quote]

Thus, it makes sense that we keep people from owning nukes and allow them to responsibly own firearms.

If you believe in self ownership, then you have to believe in the right to defend yourself and such a right cannot be properly limited by anything other than OTHER objective rights or the objective rights of others. The rights of the individual always trump the whims of the state or the majority for that matter. Anything less is really just another spin on "might makes right".

And really, how can any moral person live with themselves knowing that their actions precluded a good person from defending themselves from an evil doer? See, that's what it all boils down to. Some of us are evil and otherwise dangerous. Some of us are bigger and/or meaner than others. Some of us are easy targets and easier prey if we can't defend ourselves. To knowingly sacrifice victims is morally reprehensible. It smacks of "you gotta break a few eggs to make an omlette". Or similar ends justifies the means type stuff--far to reminiscent of other murderous totalitarians or perhaps merely the typical prelude to such.

Mark ( the other other white meat )"

I would agree with your argument if its premises were infact true, but they are not.
Lets start with this claim -
- OEX "I can own a hand gun or a shot gun or an assault rifle and frankly a machine gun, because all can safely and effectively be used to defend one's rights. But a nuke, or a chemical weapon, or something similar all PRECLUDE the non-rights violating use of defensive force. You just can't use those things to defend yourself without harming innocents"

This is one of those 'good in theory' but not in reality positions. In reality, no, you can NOT fire a automatic weapon at an attacker and guarantee not injuring any innocent people. It isn't even true that hand guns can achieve such accuracy.[/quote]

That is an assertion without a shred of supporting evidence. I have fired an automatic weapon and it can, indeed, be fired in a manner that is not at all likely to hit much outside of your target ZONE. You can indeed guarantee that you will not hit an innocent. Where do you get your information? This probably explains the incorrect conclusions.

[quote]But actually I was making a different point there with the nuke. The claim is made that 'guns don't kill, its bad people', that is, bad people would kill anyway they just happens to use a gun. That is nonsense as anyone with a cursory knowledge of crimonology knows.
Lets look closer at crime. A major percentage of crime occur for 2 reasons -

1. Crimes of passion - people kill spouses/lovers/road rage etc because of TEMPORARY LOSS OF CONTROL. Its easy to pick up a gun a shoot someone in that moment, it takes a second. But killing people another way is actually hard, and so the mere existance of guns esculates these crimes in USA to shootings from lesser crimes of violence. [/quote]

Domestic violence is, indeed a nasty problem that guns can make worse. But, see, I don't care about that. It's not my responsibility. *I* am my responsibility. These folks need to take responsibility for their bad choices and behaviors. We don't need to make abusive relationships "safer". We need to put an end to them. I'm certainly not going to sacrifice MY values and goals for the irrational decisions of others!

[quote]2. Mental Incapacity - something like 50% of all crime is alcohol or drug related. A large percentage of people committing these crimes are under the influence to one degree or another. Again, it that state of poor judgment it easy to pick up a gun and try to rob a store/person etc

So for a large % of crime the existence of guns contributes to crime.[/quote]

Fine, but I think you're glossing over the very real logical case for drug "criminals" merely defending their interests because the state will not. Much "drug-related" crime is really entirely unrelated to a loss of reason.

[quote]But, even if it were true that your right to defend protected you, you only need protection because of guns!![/quote]

Nonsense. Utter, unmitigated nonsense. Last month, just down the road, some fellow broke into a home with a sledge hammer. Attacking the homeowner. Fortunately, he had a gun and was able to get it and defend himself. He was injured but survived. The intruder did not. Notice, no gun, but definitely lethal force. Most rapes here, in this area, don't involve guns. That might explain why they were rapes and not attacks, but that's another matter.

[quote] So you are in an 'arms race' situation. If criminals start using new more dangerous weapons, you will be forced to in defence (since this is your reasoning), and even more innocents will die.[/quote]

False premise. All a criminal needs is to be bigger and meaner for me to need a gun to defend myself, my family, or my property. Women are commonly attacked and the attacker has no more than a knife or a threat.

[quote]Studies also show ( i quoted last post0 that the defender often escalates a 'lower crime' such as robbery, to a violent crime such as homicide. [/quote]

I state that the studies aren't valid or credible. I've seen quite the opposite. Millions of "lower crimes" are deterred each year through the use of guns.

[quote]You said: "No right can properly violate the rights of others"
Yes it can, any right to a weapon that can kill innocent people violates the rights of others, and guns do and can kill innocent people.[/quote]

That's irrational. MY right to own a weapon and defend myself doesn't violate the rights of othere. My ownership doesn't either, any more than your ownership of a car violates the rights of others. A car CAN kill innocent people and it does all the time. Ownership of any weapon is NOT a rights violation.

[quote]You are violating my rights in many ways -
- to not be shot be criminals with guns, because you insist on allowing wide access to them.
- to put my children at risk at school and other people's homes who have guns and don't make that known to me.
[/quote]

Mark, you don't understand what an objective right is, nor the rational construct of such. I wish I had time to take you all the way back and walk you through the derivation...

My gun doesn't threaten you any more than your car or your draino threaten me. There is no rights violation because there's no action by me nor credible imminent threat. I insist that others like me be allowed to properly defend ourselves and such proper defense does NOT violate ANYONE's right.

And, while there is likely an implied responsibility to let parents of one's child's playmates know that there is a weapon in the house, certainly, you don't have a right to use force against ME that increases MY risk or harm so that you don't have to worry about irrationally unlikely scenarios.

[quote]OEX said - "The rights of the individual always trump the whims of the state or the majority for that matter"
You do not have the right to own dangerous animals with permit, geez you cannot even drive a car without a test and permit. [/quote]

Why do you say that I don't have the right to own dangerous animals without a permit? Just because the state doesn't recognize such, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. Similarly, it doesn't mean that it does, either. But there's the facts of reality and context to consider. Principled people suss this out, we don't let arbitary rules determine right and wrong. Cars are a different matter. You can easily drive a car properly without a test or permit. Folks do it all the time, in fact. Usually on their own property. Of course, once they get out on roads that other people pay for, it's reasonable that we require that they know what they are doing.

[quote] That is a vetting procedure that restricts individual rights, putting the state's safety first, we do it with nearly everything. [/quote]

That's where you're dead wrong. The state doesn't have rights. It either defends or violates the rights of individuals. It does both. But the said vetting procedure is sometimes proper and sometimes not. Often it's just an arbitary violation of objective rights (usually property rights).

It has nothing to do with the actual nature of rights. I was stating an undeniable truth, Mark. It only takes reason and a grasp of the facts of reality to come to the same inevitable conclusion, if you are fully rational (and take the time--most don't).

[quote]For guns, surely the minimum permit process would be more rigorous and restrictive than driving! [/quote]

Why? By what reason? I own me, but I don't own the roads. I make the rules for my protection, but I don't make the rules of the road. Now, that said, I'm conflicted on gun permitting. Guns in incompetent hands are dangerous, but not more dangerious than the state. Poorly trained dolts can hurt innocents, but evil governments hurt many many millions more.

Personally, I think concealed carry permitting is proper because it is minimally rights violating (and perhaps not at all) and allows me to know that those who aren't willing to prove training have to show me their weapon so I can choose to avoid them.

[quote]OEX said - "And really, how can any moral person live with themselves knowing that their actions precluded a good person from defending themselves from an evil doer? . Some of us are evil and otherwise dangerous "

I don't know what an 'evil doer' is,[/quote]

Whoa! Why NOT???? Is this part of our problem?

[quote] but as said, most crimes are the result of -
- temporary loss of control, a normal part of the human condition under extreme stress
- drugs/alcohol[/quote]

I think that you're quite wrong, unless you're loosening your definitions overmuch.

[quote]Also about a brief study would show that VIOLENT crime is highly correlated to economic strata i.e. its mostly done by and too poorer people.[/quote]

Sure, but that's rather irrelevant. Poor folks deserve to defend themselves as much as rich white investment advisors.

I will say that poor folks often are forced by the state to operate outside of the rule of law. There's a culture of outlaw entrepreneurship that makes many of the poor much more vulnerable to crime of all sorts and violent crime may or may not be related to efforts at self or property defense, since the police can't be relied upon or called upon. That's far afield, but I bring it up for your edification. See last month's Reason Magazine for more. It's fascinating.

[quote]I really don't see what it has to do with 'good and evil'[/quote]

Well, see, attacking an innocent is EVIL. Defending an innocent with reasonable force is good. That part is simple, and we can derive it.

[quote], that's morallistic subjectivity[/quote]

Whoa. My morality is OBJECTIVE.

[quote] that does not allow us to change anything - one cannot easily prevent 'evil' but I can try prevent the causes I listed with public education and policy.[/quote]

And once you abdicate your responsibility to promote good vs. evil (and evidently you refuse to even differentiate per above), then you can delude yourself into pretty much any course of unprincipled action as a matter of pragmatism or convenience.

[quote]Trust me I know it hard to tackle the causes of crime, but characterizations like 'evildoers' can easily lend itself to a mentality of - 'they are just a bad lot, and we are not responsible for 'them'.[/quote]

I'm not dropping context. Evil can be done, when I refer to such, I MEAN such. If I meant "lapses in judgment or reason" or "accidental" acts, I'd say such. I'm not characterizing a fighting couple as evil just because someone gets hurt.

[quote] A study of history will show you how dangerous that mentality is, but I don't have time here. [/quote]

I think that the problem is that folks are unwilling to say that objective evil exists and to stand against it. In fact, the REAL problem is that folks are unwilling to even derive what evil is.

[quote]But In reality, clearly identifiable causes can be found for much violent crime, most people are not born criminal, there is no criminal gene or inferior gene pool, that is garbage pseduo science of the extremely ignorant.[ to be clear, I realize you weren't saying that, I am just saying why I don't like phrasing things in those terms..][/quote]

Let me say this. To some extent, there is a genetic component to crime, if only stupidity. The correlation is pretty high. Ask anyone in law enforcement. Also, --and I'm working from memory here -- if you correct for domestic violence, most of the really violent crime is a direct result of or an indirect function of our government's irrational war on drugs. People fighting over drug profits and drug turf and criminal and morally depraved activities funded by illegal drug profits can be laid at the feet of the state.

[quote]OEX said - "..... ... Some of us are easy targets and easier prey if we can't defend ourselves. To knowingly sacrifice victims is morally reprehensible"
It would be morally reprehensible if you didn't weight YOUR risk, against the risk of others from your right to defence, which requires widespread access to guns with all the attendant risk to innocents via
- stray bullets
- children accidentally getting ahold of it
- crimes of passion/impaired judgement leading to higher violence level with gun.[/quote]

That's indeed a matter for every gun owner to weigh, but WE aren't taking rights violating actions. That a rare accident MIGHT happen isn't a legitimate excuse to violate my rights. It's only a reason to hold me responsible should my IRRESPONSIBLE ACTIONS cause such a bad outcome.

Your approach is to say, "You MIGHT run a red light so I'm going to use state force to preclude you from owning a car.

[quote]Then there's the question of proportionality. Your risk of being a target of a crime requiring gun defence is extremely low.[/quote]

I hope so, but that risk is dynamic and contextual. And, the mere fact that in my city I can carry presents a real deterrent effect. For others, that risk is much higher.

[quote]I dunno', I came from UK and have live in USA 10 years. It would never have occured to me to own a gun, or anyone in UK, but we face the same risks of crime as occur in USA. That is because the risk is still low, I don't worry about getting hit by a car, dieing of illness etc or all those more likely killers - its just seems irrational to me. [/quote]

We have a tradition of self defense in this country and that tradition is why we're not part of UK.

Many folks like to pretend that gun ownership is all about some macho dudes shooting it up. It's not in the vast, vast majority of cases. It IS about deterring crime (and it DOES deter that, studies show), and it is about making sure that our government remains at least minimally respectful of citizens rights. It's even more important now than it was 100 years ago.

The OOWM

[calmcookie]

Hey ... can we get back to food? Healthy MIND in a healthy body ... and no ones gonna get hurt.

[Rogerdodger]

We try to make sense out of a senseless act.

[maineman]

Is a person who is a vegetarian less likely to kill someone? Is there data? Is a person who eats Skippy Peanut butter more likely to kill someone? Among vegetarians, are there some vegetables that lead to more aggression than others? How would we explain a vegetarian serial killer? Would we be inclined to parse his diet and show his choice of vegetables? Or perhaps his prepation techiques? His garnishes? Portion size? Are patients on Atkins type diets more aggressive? More generous? More charitable? Are they more aggressive than South Beach dieters? I'm serious. Can you, Cookie, or anyone point to the data? mm

[mss]

O K you dont agree. Please dont start a food fight by challenging an individual to a "prove it" contest. Not a nice thing to do, just say you dont agree and be a nice man and --let it go. mss

[maineman]

Asking for proof of an assertion is not being mean. It's being honest and forthright. I'm serious. Is there proof of a "healthy body equals healthy mind"? Shouldn't be so hard to answer. And, what does it mean "healthy body"? That's all I was asking. Simple question. mm

[OEXCHAOS]

I think a healthy body gives me a dirty mind. M