02-17-2015, 02:21 AM
sanantone Wrote:I don't agree with Ironheadjack or Peter. Sorry. There are some issues I have with Peter's argument, but it would take more time than I have to explain. The problem with Ironheadjack is his comparison of states. When conducting research, you always have to control for demographic differences. California is very different from Vermont. One thing Peter is right about is that there are fundamental questions that have to be examined. Are some cities and states more violent because they have gun control laws, or are did they pass gun control laws because they are more violent? One would have to examine the crime trends for that particular state or city after the change in law and control for overall historical trends in crime, increase or decrease of police presence, changes in demographics over time, etc. Answering these questions is not a simple process. These problems also apply when comparing the U.S. to other countries.
Sigh. I had a few paragraphs written but it disappeared somehow.
I meant to conclude my last post with a point, but I wrote so much I got all scrambled.
There are underlying causes to gun violence in the inner city and within the minds of spree killers. We have to confront those issues and figure out why certain people can kill others with no regard for the consequences. Getting rid of guns doesn't stop murderers from murdering, it just takes one option out of their toolbag. We need to address the deeper issues that create murderers. But no one wants to have that discussion because it is hard, it's much easier to say lets just ban guns and you can feel good about yourself for "doing something".
BA in Social Science-TESC
Arnold Fletcher Award
[h=1]âOpportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.â ~Thomas Edison[/h]
Arnold Fletcher Award
[h=1]âOpportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work.â ~Thomas Edison[/h]