AlphaPatriot -- Observations of a Reformed Liberal & Mexican Immigration Guide - by Mexican government
AlphaPatriot has a very interesting post on some gun control research. I'll quote the origional newspaper article
That's all you really need to get a good understanding of the article, and I'd really hate to quote more. Large quotes are frowned upon, especially quotes of copyrighted material that I can only quote (and get away with it) because everyone else does and because the papers don't really care too much. The papers are welcome to quote me, of course; but I don't copyright (yet) and I don't think I'm really that credible, or at least as newspapers evaluate credibility.
So, gun control doesn't work all that well. Big surprise; the criminals who kill people are also willing to illegally carry guns. Whoop-dee-freakin-doo. Finally, a few more people are starting to realize this fact.
Someday, my vision, a "reach out and punch somebody" world, may be realized (I am being slightly sarcastic. Only slightly). Isn't it odd that humans are so averse to physical contact? How many people, other than family members or the person you're dating, do you actually touch in an average day? Unless you're a doctor, or living in a culture a bit different from that of the US (Spain, in this case, is quite different, if my information is correct), probably very few. But, that's just a rambling thought that I've spun around my head on a few occasions over the past few weeks.
Now, the next (unrelated) article, here
The Mexican government is printing a how-to comic book for illegal immigration to the US. This is the type of thing that is costing Mexico better trade, borders that are actually open, and some better international relations. Why does Mexico want to send people to the UWS? Mexico's 2nd largest source of income is from the money that Mexicans in the US send back to their families in Mexico, that's a good reason. Mexico's government is quite corrupt, and corruption is probably the biggest hurdle to development in any country. Security, infrastructure, and resources can all be built or brought in by a company, but corrupt government officials can hold any company hostage for all its worth, because they can close the company and arrest the people there if they want to.
Further, some claim that corruption is just the way people in some countries live, and that it’s the standard way of life. Bullshit. The people who gain from corruption are the people in power (mainly military, government officials, and police), because they are the only ones who have the ability to extort others. Those not in power, the masses, are screwed over. Not only do these masses have to pay whatever the authorities demand, but the masses are deprived of jobs and opportunities for a better life because authorities prevent development in their country; the masses are being screwed over by the same people in two different ways.
Tomorrow, I hope to have some better posts, hopefully with more relevant and coherent thoughts. I'm trying to decide whether I should make a post on gay marriage, an issue which I am likely to be against the rest of my party (the Republicans) on. But, my support for it was created by a meeting with one of the anti-gay-marriage types; the guy was a Nazi. Seriously, he home schooled his two daughters so they wouldn't meet anyone who disagreed with him. Additionally, his main argument was based around the claim that it takes a mother and father to raise a child (I'll agree that it usually does, not always necessary, but usually is very important), but he didn't seem to realize that homosexual couples tend to not have children. Also, when I asked the guy if he considered the possibility that his proposals would turn out similar to Abolition – hoping to end some problem by removing one suspected source, but in fact making the problems (crime) many times worse – because many couples with children have no intention to get married, and banning gays from getting married would mean that there are more lifelong couples that never take the step to get married. In my opinion, the long-term relationships with kids but not marriage are far worse than gay marriages.
Well, if I can't get to this post tomorrow, at least you know some of the main arguments, even though I haven't really written them in a fashion that is easy to understand, though they are quite understandable with a bit of consideration.
[This] month the National Academy of Sciences issued a 328-page report on gun-control laws. The big news is that the academy's panel couldn't identify any benefits of decades-long effort to reduce crime and injury by restricting gun ownership. The only conclusion it could draw was: Let's study the question some more (presumably, until we find the results we want).
The academy, however, should believe its own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a single gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.
...
It's bad enough that the panel backed away from its own survey and empirical work; worse yet is that it didn't really look objectively at all the evidence. If it had, it would have found not just that gun control doesn't help solve the problems of crime, suicide and gun accidents, but that it can actually be counterproductive.
The panel simply ignored many studies showing just that. For example, the research on gun locks that the panel considered examined only whether accidental gun deaths and suicides were prevented. There was no mention of research that shows that locking up guns prevents people from using them defensively.
The panel also ignored most of the studies that find a benefit in crime reduction from right-to-carry laws. It did pay attention to some non-peer reviewed papers on the right-to-carry issue, and it also noted one part of a right-to-carry study that indicated little or no benefit from such laws. What the panel didn't point out, however, is that the authors of that particular study had concluded that data in their work did much more to show there were benefits than to debunk it.
That's all you really need to get a good understanding of the article, and I'd really hate to quote more. Large quotes are frowned upon, especially quotes of copyrighted material that I can only quote (and get away with it) because everyone else does and because the papers don't really care too much. The papers are welcome to quote me, of course; but I don't copyright (yet) and I don't think I'm really that credible, or at least as newspapers evaluate credibility.
So, gun control doesn't work all that well. Big surprise; the criminals who kill people are also willing to illegally carry guns. Whoop-dee-freakin-doo. Finally, a few more people are starting to realize this fact.
Someday, my vision, a "reach out and punch somebody" world, may be realized (I am being slightly sarcastic. Only slightly). Isn't it odd that humans are so averse to physical contact? How many people, other than family members or the person you're dating, do you actually touch in an average day? Unless you're a doctor, or living in a culture a bit different from that of the US (Spain, in this case, is quite different, if my information is correct), probably very few. But, that's just a rambling thought that I've spun around my head on a few occasions over the past few weeks.
Now, the next (unrelated) article, here
The Mexican government is printing a how-to comic book for illegal immigration to the US. This is the type of thing that is costing Mexico better trade, borders that are actually open, and some better international relations. Why does Mexico want to send people to the UWS? Mexico's 2nd largest source of income is from the money that Mexicans in the US send back to their families in Mexico, that's a good reason. Mexico's government is quite corrupt, and corruption is probably the biggest hurdle to development in any country. Security, infrastructure, and resources can all be built or brought in by a company, but corrupt government officials can hold any company hostage for all its worth, because they can close the company and arrest the people there if they want to.
Further, some claim that corruption is just the way people in some countries live, and that it’s the standard way of life. Bullshit. The people who gain from corruption are the people in power (mainly military, government officials, and police), because they are the only ones who have the ability to extort others. Those not in power, the masses, are screwed over. Not only do these masses have to pay whatever the authorities demand, but the masses are deprived of jobs and opportunities for a better life because authorities prevent development in their country; the masses are being screwed over by the same people in two different ways.
Tomorrow, I hope to have some better posts, hopefully with more relevant and coherent thoughts. I'm trying to decide whether I should make a post on gay marriage, an issue which I am likely to be against the rest of my party (the Republicans) on. But, my support for it was created by a meeting with one of the anti-gay-marriage types; the guy was a Nazi. Seriously, he home schooled his two daughters so they wouldn't meet anyone who disagreed with him. Additionally, his main argument was based around the claim that it takes a mother and father to raise a child (I'll agree that it usually does, not always necessary, but usually is very important), but he didn't seem to realize that homosexual couples tend to not have children. Also, when I asked the guy if he considered the possibility that his proposals would turn out similar to Abolition – hoping to end some problem by removing one suspected source, but in fact making the problems (crime) many times worse – because many couples with children have no intention to get married, and banning gays from getting married would mean that there are more lifelong couples that never take the step to get married. In my opinion, the long-term relationships with kids but not marriage are far worse than gay marriages.
Well, if I can't get to this post tomorrow, at least you know some of the main arguments, even though I haven't really written them in a fashion that is easy to understand, though they are quite understandable with a bit of consideration.
posted by Chris at
11:15 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home