• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

It's Not Paranoia If It's Happening

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Huh? Science does not need to have a plausible causal mechanism to observe something. For a very long time we had no reason for what causes mass, and yet we knew about mass. How about what causes energy, we have no clue as to what causes that. Are you saying energy is not a thing because there is no plausible established causal mechanism? I'm very confused as to your statement here.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3828709/

"The final GEE negative binomial model revealed 6 significant predictors of firearm homicide rates: gun ownership proxy (IRR = 1.009; 95% CI = 1.004, 1.014), percentage Black, income inequality, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, and incarceration rate (Table 2). This model indicates that for each 1 percentage point increase in the gun ownership proxy, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%."

Are you saying this did not find that the % of Black people in the population was a predictor?

Haha, I have no doubt that you are very confused. I personally am baffled as to your confusion though as this is something they teach you on the very first day of any stats or research course. Basic to any attempt to establish a causal relationship is a plausible causal mechanism. This is established with the guns/gun violence relationship. It is not established with the being of African ancestry/gun violence relationship, which is what he was clearly referring to.

You may want to refer back to woolfe's criticisms from threads past where you tend to get very confused and wrapped up in arguments that come from your inability to understand things that everyone else considers to be implicitly obvious.
 
Was that true before FL passed the most recent law (either this week or last)? If you've can cite the law, I'd be interested in seeing that as well.

Carrying of Firearms[edit]
Tennessee State Constitution, Article I, Section 26, reads:

That the citizens of this state have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime.[9]

State supreme court rulings and state attorney general opinions interpret Section 26 to mean regulation cannot and should not interfere with the common lawful uses of firearms, including defense of the home and hunting, but should only be aimed at criminal behavior. Andrews v. State (1870) and Glasscock v. Chattanooga (1928) defined the meaning of regulating arms. "Going armed", carrying any sort of weapon for offense or defense in public, is a crime, except carrying a handgun for defense is allowed with a state-issued permit.

A license is required to carry a loaded handgun either openly or concealed. Such permits are issued through the Department of Safety to qualified residents 21 years or 18 years old if the applicant is active duty, reservist, guardsman, or honorably discharged from their branch of service, DD-214 must mention 'pistol qualification' in order to be exempt from 8 hour safety course must have a valid military ID. The length of the term for the initial license is determined by the age of the applicant. If renewed properly and on time, the license is renewed every 5 years. Tennessee recognizes any valid, out-of-state permit for carrying a handgun as long as the permittee is not a resident of Tennessee. Nonresidents are not issued permits unless they are regularly employed in the state. Such persons are then required to obtain Tennessee permits even if they have home state permits unless their home state has entered into a reciprocity agreement with Tennessee. Permittees may carry handguns in most areas except civic centers, public recreation buildings and colleges. Businesses or landowners posting "no carry" signs may prohibit gun carry on any portion of their properties.

Carrying Handguns[edit]
Tennessee requires a permit to carry a firearm, whether openly or concealed. Additionally, per Tenn. Code Ann. 39-17-1351 r.(1) a facially valid handgun permit, firearms permit, weapons permit or license issued by another state shall be valid in this state [Tennessee] according to its terms and shall be treated as if it is a handgun permit issued by this state [Tennessee]).

Do you have the specific statute handy? I'd like to take a look.
 
If that's all it takes for "law abiding citizens" to become irresponsible gun owners then it sounds like guns need to be removed from them even more so.

People who are threatened by use of force against them probably deserve it anyway, is that what you are saying?
Assad would be pleased to know he's justified in his massacre because his people resisted.
 
Haha, I have no doubt that you are very confused. I personally am baffled as to your confusion though as this is something they teach you on the very first day of any stats or research course. Basic to any attempt to establish a causal relationship is a plausible causal mechanism. This is established with the guns/gun violence relationship. It is not established with the being of African ancestry/gun violence relationship, which is what he was clearly referring to.

You may want to refer back to woolfe's criticisms from threads past where you tend to get very confused and wrapped up in arguments that come from your inability to understand things that everyone else considers to be implicitly obvious.

And away we go.

The person I responded to gave out less guns = less violence. For your argument to hold true, then please show me a study that find guns cause violence. I'm not looking for a study on how guns make situations worse as we agree there. But if the person thinks less guns = less violence, then he is looking correlation and not causation.
 
And away we go.

The person I responded to gave out less guns = less violence. For your argument to hold true, then please show me a study that find guns cause violence. I'm not looking for a study on how guns make situations worse as we agree there. But if the person thinks less guns = less violence, then he is looking correlation and not causation.

You are once again confused by things that everyone else finds implicitly obvious.
 
The science does not say that as there is no plausible established causal mechanism, unlike with reductions in lethal means.

Black population has different proportion of MAOA gene expression, so it's not unreasonable to think a reduction or increase of this pop would increase/decrease violence levels as a direct consequence. There are probably other genes relating specifically to violence as well and even intelligence beside impulse control will be a relevant variable.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626
 
People who are threatened by use of force against them probably deserve it anyway, is that what you are saying?
Assad would be pleased to know he's justified in his massacre because his people resisted.

No ones threatening use of force, just stop with your straw man.

You should be ashamed for even attempting to make such a stupid argument.
 
Black population has different proportion of MAOA gene expression, so it's not unreasonable to think a reduction or increase of this pop would increase/decrease violence levels as a direct consequence. There are probably other genes relating specifically to violence as well and even intelligence beside impulse control will be a relevant variable.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24326626

Or its way more complicated than that...

https://scientiasalon.wordpress.com/2014/07/31/the-extreme-warrior-gene-a-reality-check/
 
So you "people" think the criminals are going to give up thier guns? This law only tramples the rights of the law abiding citizens. As for the source, there are tons of them but the libtard media isn't covering it. I guess they don't care to inform us of our rights being taken away.
Using scare quotes around "you people" implies that you don't think people who disagree with you are people.

Also: libtard

You're a fucking idiot.
 
Haha, I have no doubt that you are very confused. I personally am baffled as to your confusion though as this is something they teach you on the very first day of any stats or research course. Basic to any attempt to establish a causal relationship is a plausible causal mechanism. This is established with the guns/gun violence relationship. It is not established with the being of African ancestry/gun violence relationship, which is what he was clearly referring to.

You may want to refer back to woolfe's criticisms from threads past where you tend to get very confused and wrapped up in arguments that come from your inability to understand things that everyone else considers to be implicitly obvious.

Typical. Such a condescending post over something you give no supporting statement to.


I know it's complicated. I'm not claiming to know what percentage is attributed to nature vs. nurture.
 
Back
Top