This thread isn't about "eradicating violent crime etc etc etc". Its about the psychological analysis into gun culture. We've referred to two main hypothesis (one fuelled by fear, another by something akin to bounded rationality). Any comments on those or perhaps you'd like to other a third and fourth?
Take your paranoid lying a$$ out of here. That isn't part of your 'evidence' in any of your post. Your a cornered liar
Here's an example of the research that you're not aware of: Sorenson and Wiebe (2004, Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 94 Issue 8, pp 1412-1417) You really should get your facts straight before blundering in without merit or thought!
Using a sample derived from 67 battered women's shelters, it is able to conclude on page 1416 that guns "are more common in the homes of battered women than in households in the general population". Golly, empirical evidence in published scholarly research!
I got a nasty gram. I can play that game. What this guy is doing is hiding behind 'evidence' that only he can retrieve. Then has the arrogance the say what is wrong with you for not being up to date on the 'evidence' . That is a bunch of bs.
There are proper methods for addressing contrary positions, friend. Calling others "liars" is not one of those.
Why would 'wife abusing' households have higher gun ownership rates than norm? This subject is too important for the standard bias displayed on this sub-forum, so referring to all possibilities would be useful!
I agree. I'm sure your study offers some possibilities on this, but I would guess that it has a large part to do with the mindset of the abuser. We know that abusers and wife abusers in particular are all about control. What other tool offers us so much control over another than a gun? It's a match made in heaven.
But we do have the feminist offshoot that suggests gun ownership is actually crucial for ensuring female independence. The reality, for now, seems to be about protecting women by denying gun access to a minority. However, the issue is whether that is fire fighting and just a 'current' off-shoot in 'gun culture' (which could change as gun ownership patterns also change)
Reiver, the study you are referring to does not address one important questions who actually acquired these firearms in the wifebeaters households? Is it not more logical to asume that opressed women acquired these firearms for protection against opressive males? Do you have any evidence to the contrary?
This would seem a reasonable position and not incongruous from your original observations. People DO need to be protected from the gun testosterone, right? Who's position is this, and what "minority"? I don't see a huge conflict in the gun ownership of women as to this. The ownership of guns by women as compared to men is a fairly wide gulf as I recall and if there are motivations to own guns by men in general worth looking at, and if some can be scientifically isolated, then what's the harm? I've never been afraid of knowledge.
The data is from women forced into shelters. We're not referring to women somehow empowered. However, if you'd like to suggest that happens- in general- then be by guest. Do you have any evidence to support the feminist argument offered earlier in the thread?
The standard masculinity argument and how, for a minority, that includes disagreeable behaviour with regards family members. One of the authors referenced has since looked at restraining orders. I suppose it depends over the extent that we can accept the fear hypothesis. We could then just get different flavours of fear across gender
I couldn't care less about feminism. You have however quoted the study that supplied two pieces of information: 1. the rate of gun ownership in wife beaters households is higher than average 2. this is according to victims (beaten wives) From this information you had drawn conclusion that supports your agenda. Of course being liberal you do not have an abandance of formal logic. Because if you did you would realise that number of conclusions supporting pretty much any agenda could be drawn from the study you so naively relied upon. A person in possesion of logic would ask a lot of inconvinient questions: How would these women know about firearms in possesion of their oppressors? Were they (firearms) used to opress these women? If this was the case why were the opressors not charged with armed assault (and they clearly were not, othervise the women would be in their original residence not in a shelter)? How did these women even managed to survive assault from a stronger and on top of that armed opressor? These are just few questions of top of my head.
Surprising, as it would offer a rationale for your reasoning No, I've simply referred to the evidence. I'm not a liberal. Why are you making baseless claims? Are you suggesting that gun ownership amongst women encourages men to beat their wives? That would be the alternative argument (an unsupported one though) A person in possession of logic would realise that the data comparison is the result of extensive interviewing of the victims. Typically the guns are used to threaten them. Much domestic abuse goes unpunished. One of the authors, however, has since looked at restraining orders (and their relative effectiveness) They fled to shelters Try some more!
An alternative analysis used to try and understand gun culture effects: the adversary effects hypothesis. Here, the focus is on personal confrontation and how that impacts on behavioural traits. Where retaliation becomes likely, the response is to at the very least arm oneself. There is also an increased possibility of adopting an aggressive posture. Guns, ironically to avoid victimisation, then leads to a contagion effect (with path dependency in violence)
Studies show very little causal relationship with gun ownership and violence. Sorenson and Wiebe (2004, Weapons in the Lives of Battered Women, American Journal of Public Health, Vol. 94 Issue 8, pp 1418 )
Take away all the guns and knives in the world and this forum would look like this: Political Forum > Political Issues > Baseball Bat Control Batisation? Ex-Yankee Nutjob Has Bad Hair Day Tennessee tourist arrested for bringing Louisville Slugger into 9/11 Memorial Elementary School Tee-Ball Game Turns Bloody You can't stop violence. We need to enforce the laws we already have - make punishments fit the crime. Our justic.... er.. legal system is the problem. A thug with priors gets caught with a stolen gun he gets a slap on the wrist and 30 days of free food and TV while planning his next crime. If we want to get tough on "illegal" gun use then we need to get tough on the "illegal" use of guns. The 10-20-LIFE thing in Florida was a start in the right direction, but they should have left out the 10-20 part. Crime is up because punishment is down.
No one said you could. One can, however, refer to gun culture and appreciate why guns will be a significant determinant of violent crime rates
Puerto Rico is an island and has extremely strict gun control and a very high violent crime and murder rate (983 murders in 2010) (population 3,978,702 ). El Paso, TX is the 19th largest city in the U.S.,(Population 800,647 has more guns than people and had only 16 murders last year. Both El Paso and Puerto Rico are overwhelming majority Spanish.
