Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

tl;dr

Who needs gun when we got this guy?

e77g8rav2Dg

Wow...Spammers sure are getting elaborate.

This is a difficult one.

I am not for arming the police officers (mostly because I spent a lot of my life in England), however, places where guns are legal to own would be difficult if not impossible as well as dangerous to impose disarmament of officers.

The answer to this question is directly proportional to the level of gun control in a country.

it should depend on the crime level, imo. why carry a tazer in a place where people are walking around with desert eagles? and viseversa.

Originally posted by King Kandy
The answer to this question is directly proportional to the level of gun control in a country.

Please expand on this, greatly. Like, a lot.

Cite your sources, etc.

In UK it is very rare that criminals can get guns because the laws are extremely strict. It is not necessary to be armed for the police to that level, similarly Kevlar is unnecessary. In fact I remember reading the police were actually considering chainmail as the bod armor of choice because it's much more likely to see a criminal with a knife than with a gun.

On "psychology career day" at my school a couple of years ago, the local police sent in a couple of "ambassadors" to explain how our degrees could be used in a career of crime fighting.

These officers were not only armed, but dressed in full bullet proof gear. Regular patrol cop stuff, but sort of completely inappropriate for someone in a university. I asked him if he expected trouble, and said I was shocked he would come armed to something like this, but it has later been explained to me that, as an on duty police officer, he had to have that attire/weapon.

There are times and places where cops with guns are good, and times when they aren't. I'll be honest, its the non-lethal weapons, like tazers, that bother me more. Because they aren't lethal, cops are very quick to use them in situations that really don't require any use of force (source: the RCMP, canada's federal police).

Originally posted by King Kandy
In UK it is very rare that criminals can get guns because the laws are extremely strict. It is not necessary to be armed for the police to that level, similarly Kevlar is unnecessary. In fact I remember reading the police were actually considering chainmail as the bod armor of choice because it's much more likely to see a criminal with a knife than with a gun.

That is not entiraly true. Black market is full of guns, mini machine guns and other things and if you really want one, you can get it without a problem.
However, guns are illegal, so if you mean by not an ordinary person has it legaly, and it is not common, then you're correct.

Originally posted by King Kandy
In UK it is very rare that criminals can get guns because the laws are extremely strict. It is not necessary to be armed for the police to that level, similarly Kevlar is unnecessary. In fact I remember reading the police were actually considering chainmail as the bod armor of choice because it's much more likely to see a criminal with a knife than with a gun.

But, violent crimes per capita and or deaths by violent crimes per capita are a better showing for your point. Those showings don't agree that no guns deter violence and death.


I'm for gun control, if it makes sense. So far, I haven't seen anything that indicates gun control actually prevents violent crimes on a regular basis.



And,if someone in the UK wants a gun bad enough and they aren't an idiot, they can get a gun. Kind of.....makes the odds a little unfair for the police, right?











Here's some perspective for you: I can build my own gun by using the internet. I can make my own gunpowder by using the internet. Hell, I can build my own explosive by using the internet. Just a little time and research. I have the IT know-how to prevent these "searches" from ever being traced back to me with digital forensics. If I wanted a gun, in the UK, I could have one...and no one would know the wiser.


Edit- What she said.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That is not entiraly true. Black market is full of guns, mini machine guns and other things and if you really want one, you can get it without a problem.
However, guns are illegal, so if you mean by not an ordinary person has it legaly, and it is not common, then you're correct.




Even if guns were so extremely rare to get a hold of, there is always the option of making one. In a country with no guns execpt in military hands, a ordinary person with a gun is God.

Originally posted by dadudemon

I'm for gun control, if it makes sense. So far, I haven't seen anything that indicates gun control actually prevents violent crimes on a regular basis.

This sentance is confusing. Don't you mean you are against gun control?

Originally posted by dadudemon
In a country with no guns execpt in military hands, a ordinary person with a gun is God.

Really not the issue you imagine it is, else we would have a lot of self-made gods in this country.

Here in the states, gun control is a joke. Even if police didn't carry guns, even if it were made impossible to legally buy a firearm, they would still be around. Black market. IMO guns are a necessary evil.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Really not the issue you imagine it is, else we would have a lot of self-made gods in this country.

That's why it's a hypothetical.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This sentance is confusing. Don't you mean you are against gun control?

This:

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm for gun control, if it makes sense.










With that, is an implied contrapositive.


"I'm not for control, if it doesn't make sense."

Well, basically.. it simkply doesn't happen. In a country with gun control, there aren't actually many crimes that routinely arming police would help with. Sure, you can relatively esasily get a black market weapon, but that simply never translates to people shotting police dead in the streets.

Illegal weaponry tends to be used in the following ways:

1. Bank robberies (and the like). Unless armed police are there already,. arming them in general wouldn't actually make any difference to this

2. Gang warfare. Ditto.

In both cases, there is a specific unit of armed response officers in the UK that can be quickly dispatched as needed. And during periods of high tension, the Chief Constable for an area can make the decision to arm his officers.

Dispatching armed officers when needed... basically covers 99% of the times when cops actually need to be armed. As for the other 1%, the advantages of NOT carrying guns outwieghs that.

Fact is, gun crime here is very low, gun deaths are extremely low, and police being shot is almost unheard of. So the whole idea of cops carrying guns by default seems a bit silly here.

Originally posted by dadudemon
This:












With that, is an implied contrapositive.


"I'm not for control, if it doesn't make sense."

It got confusing, cos 'gun control' generally means banning of guns. I see what you mean.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, basically.. it simkply doesn't happen. In a country with gun control, there aren't actually many crimes that routinely arming police would help with. Sure, you can relatively esasily get a black market weapon, but that simply never translates to people shotting police dead in the streets.

Illegal weaponry tends to be used in the following ways:

1. Bank robberies. Unless armed police are there already,. arming them in general wouldn;tr actually make any difference to this

2. Gang warfare. Ditto.

In both cases, there is a specific unit of armed respons eofficers in the UK that an be quickly dispatched as needed. And during periods of high tension, the Chief Constable for an area can make the decision to arm his officers.

Dispatching armed officers when needed... basically covers 99% of the times when cops actually need to be armed. As for the other 1%, the advantages of NOT carrying guns outwieghs that.

Fact is, gun crime here is very low, gun deaths are extremely low, and police being shot is almost unheard of. So the whole idea of cops carrying guns by default seems a bit silly here. If a cop there responds to a call where normally a weapon is needed (tazer, gun, etc) what are they to do? Like if the suspect they are trying to apprehend is all coked up and out of control?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
If a cop there responds to a call where normally a weapon is needed (tazer, gun, etc) what are they to do? Like if the suspect they are trying to apprehend is all coked up and out of control?

He wouldn't be armed by default. He'd call in back up if it was needed.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
If a cop there responds to a call where normally a weapon is needed (tazer, gun, etc) what are they to do? Like if the suspect they are trying to apprehend is all coked up and out of control?

It wouldn't be the time to use a gun though...like Ush said, there are specilized units that armed and are dispatched when necessary. In all other cases, there is no need to use a gun.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm for gun control, if it makes sense. So far, I haven't seen anything that indicates gun control actually prevents violent crimes on a regular basis.

the only reason for gun control is the prevention of violent gun crime?

Originally posted by inimalist
the only reason for gun control is the prevention of violent gun crime?

That's the main reason people support it.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
He wouldn't be armed by default. He'd call in back up if it was needed.


Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It wouldn't be the time to use a gun though...like Ush said, there are specilized units that armed and are dispatched when necessary. In all other cases, there is no need to use a gun. I'm talking about spur of the moment. Cop tries to apprehend a criminal, crimnial pulls a gun. The cop hasn't had time to call for backup.

Originally posted by inimalist
On "psychology career day" at my school a couple of years ago, the local police sent in a couple of "ambassadors" to explain how our degrees could be used in a career of crime fighting.

These officers were not only armed, but dressed in full bullet proof gear. Regular patrol cop stuff, but sort of completely inappropriate for someone in a university. I asked him if he expected trouble, and said I was shocked he would come armed to something like this, but it has later been explained to me that, as an on duty police officer, he had to have that attire/weapon.

We had an armed cop at my highschool to stop kids from going to the stores across the street.

Well, what you are doing here is making up a ludicrous scenario that's really not very applicable. This sort of thing simply doesn't happen enough to be anything to worry about. People are exceptionally unwilling to shoot police, all the more so because they don't carry guns. A cop with a gun is more likely to provoke beinmg shot at by someone armed. Like I say... police just don't get shot here.

Literally, speaking, he'd back off and call for backup.

-

The odd thing about SC's answer is that people support it for that reason despite the fact it clearly doesn't work- the US still has enormous gun crime despite the widespread arming of police. As other places do not have that problem, it is simple logic that there must be a better answer.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
I'm talking about spur of the moment. Cop tries to apprehend a criminal, crimnial pulls a gun. The cop hasn't had time to call for backup.

I understand that, however that would be really common in a place where guns are legal. Not so common where guns are not, though.
I'm sure in USA it is not an uncommon occurance for a criminal to pull out a gun at the police officer...which is what makes this question relative.

It is really really really rare that such happens.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I understand that, however that would be really common in a place where guns are legal. Not so common where guns are not, though.
I'm sure in USA it is not an uncommon occurance for a criminal to pull out a gun at the police officer...which is what makes this question relative.

It is really really really rare that such happens. Yup. That's why cops here are so on edge all the time. When they pull a car over, they have no idea what to expect. For all they know, they might end up staring down the barrel of a Kalishnikov.

Yeah, but why is that, RJ? You say if there was betetr gun control, people would still have the guns. Well, isn;t that true of the UK as well? There is nothing magic about the US black market.

Does it not occur to you that the cultural mentality that feels that cops need to be armed by default is the same mentality that causes your gun problem?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, basically.. it simkply doesn't happen.

Because you're arguing this, you missed the point of the hypothetical.

There is nothing complex about my hypothetical. It is already in it's simplist terms.



However, I will rephrase:



If there existed a country that had immaculate gun control methods that resulted in guns being held by only military personnel, if a regular ordinary person DID get a gun such as an automatic with lots of ammo, they could create quite a bit of damage and kill lots of people, before being taken down. It would be an ugly situation.




Then there's reality: Despite your Gun Control, people still comit violent crimes and kill each other. On top of that, criminals STILL have guns.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
In a country with gun control, there aren't actually many crimes that routinely arming police would help with. Sure, you can relatively esasily get a black market weapon, but that simply never translates to people shotting police dead in the streets.

But, are police being shot dead really what she would be primarily concerned with? Or is it the citizens? (Rhetorical.)

In the end, the laws must be to the benefit of the people while maximizing freedom.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Illegal weaponry tends to be used in the following ways:

1. Bank robberies (and the like). Unless armed police are there already,. arming them in general wouldn't actually make any difference to this

2. Gang warfare. Ditto.

In both cases, there is a specific unit of armed response officers in the UK that can be quickly dispatched as needed. And during periods of high tension, the Chief Constable for an area can make the decision to arm his officers.

Awesome.


That's not something I would be against.

In fact, if there is a case of some lunatic waiving around a gun, which happens quite often, dispatching that special unit for those situations is quite a good idea.



I do not disagree with that method of law enforcement. Truth be told, I'm more concerned about the officer's life. All to often, you read about stories of an officer being gunned down with his own gun. Newer technologies are being developed that will prevent this. They already exist and some municipalities use them. Problem solved.


But what about officers who use deadly force on an innocent? This is something that doesn't occur very often, but it DOES occur.

How do we solve that?


Maybe a specially trained unit that is armed and everyone else is armed with less-lethal weapons like tazers and night sticks.

What is your suggestion for solving the second problem?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Dispatching armed officers when needed... basically covers 99% of the times when cops actually need to be armed. As for the other 1%, the advantages of NOT carrying guns outwieghs that.

I agree, sort of. NOT using the gun outweighs that. Make sense?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Fact is, gun crime here is very low, gun deaths are extremely low, and police being shot is almost unheard of. So the whole idea of cops carrying guns by default seems a bit silly here.

Those are rather specific measurements. Too specific to be viable.


What HAS happened, though, is violent acts and violent deaths increased with OTHER items BECAUSE of the removal of guns. In fact, violent crimes have gone up, per captia, AFTER the removal of guns.




You have to correctly use the data to make logical comparisons.


What you did above is, superficially, very logical. However, a deeper inspection of the REAL problems with violence nets some rather simply deductions on the useful of such data.

Originally posted by inimalist
the only reason for gun control is the prevention of violent gun crime?

If you want to go with accidental deaths or other items, great. That's not what we are talking about.



But, if the use of gun control DOESN'T prevent violent crimes, what need is there for it?

Originally posted by dadudemon
If there existed a country that had immaculate gun control methods that resulted in guns being held by only military personnel, if a regular ordinary person DID get a gun such as an automatic with lots of ammo, they could create quite a bit of damage and kill lots of people, before being taken down. It would be an ugly situation.

Japan is like that. Supposedly the police/military can pretty much shoot anyone holding a weapon on sight. Not much gun crime.

Originally posted by dadudemon


If there existed a country that had immaculate gun control methods that resulted in guns being held by only military personnel, if a regular ordinary person DID get a gun such as an automatic with lots of ammo, they could create quite a bit of damage and kill lots of people, before being taken down. It would be an ugly situation.


But those exact situations happen in the USA very often (sometimes involving kids) and they do so much damage before police can get there and take them down (or they take themselves down).

Lord no, your so-called deeper analysis is just sophisty. There is no such coresponding increase in other crime, and in any case the whole worry is about criems with guns in the first place. The justifcation is that cops with guns are needed to stop guns- but the direct evidence proves otherwise.

The first half of your post is just garbage, btw. Your hypothetical situation, as you isnsist on calling it despite it not making any difference to naything, is still exactly answered by everything I said.

Facts are as simple as this:

It is argued that cops need to be armed to stop innocents being shot and to stop themselves being shot. The experiences of the UK show, directly and unequivocably, that this is a lie. Paranoid worries about a person getting a gun and being 'god' un a gunless society similarly have no basis.

If there is a gun problem, the solution is not armed cops.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Yeah, but why is that, RJ? You say if there was betetr gun control, people would still have the guns. Well, isn;t that true of the UK as well? There is nothing magic about the US black market.

Does it not occur to you that the cultural mentality that feels that cops need to be armed by default is the same mentality that causes your gun problem?

Well it does now.

How stiff is the punishment there for people who are caught carrying a gun?

Fairly stiff. It's not an instant life sentence or anything.

Carrying any sort of weapon is pretty looked down upon; you can get into a lot of trouble in urban areas for carrying anything the police could consture as offensive.

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
Well it does now.

How stiff is the punishment there for people who are caught carrying a gun?

Mandatory 5 years, minimum if you're caught with a gun. You can get up to 15.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Mandatory 5 years, minimum if you're caught with a gun. You can get up to 15. First offense?

Originally posted by Rogue Jedi
First offense?

Yep, first offence 5 years. If you offend again, I suspect it is a lot more.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
It got confusing, cos 'gun control' generally means banning of guns. I see what you mean.

Indeed. That's generally what it means.


If I didn't consider both possabilities and REQUIRE that evidence be given for both sides, I would be a close minded fool.

Also I think inimalist was bringing up another point that gun control just isn't for violent crimes or crime in general. That's another point. What about the non-crime part of it? How many lives are saved from gun accident deaths, because of the strict gun control laws in the U.K.?

Originally posted by King Kandy
The answer to this question is directly proportional to the level of gun control in a country.

Lol is that a fact? Guns are illegal in Mexico yet they have one of the most violent societies on earth.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
That's the main reason people support it.

fair enough...

I guess "emotional outbursts" become "gun crime" when a gun is involved, so I might have spoke too soon

Originally posted by dadudemon
Indeed. That's generally what it means.


If I didn't consider both possabilities and REQUIRE that evidence be given for both sides, I would be a close minded fool.

Also I think inimalist was bringing up another point that gun control just isn't for violent crimes or crime in general. That's another point. What about the non-crime part of it? How many lives are saved from gun accident deaths, because of the strict gun control laws in the U.K.?

There is also the case of Switzerland. They have laws mandating that all citizens of military age must have a loaded gun in their home, yet gun crime statistics are so low they aren't even kept.

Looking at them compared to America as far as gun issues go, it is day and night, even though, in the American discourse about gun control, the idea of everyone having a loaded gun at home probably doesn't make anyone sleep better. Obviously the Swiss have a unique culture and it might not be analogous to the states in a lot of important ways, but here is the point:

America and Switzerland have similar rates of gun use for suicide.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is also the case of Switzerland. They have laws mandating that all citizens of military age must have a loaded gun in their home, yet gun crime statistics are so low they aren't even kept.

Looking at them compared to America as far as gun issues go, it is day and night, even though, in the American discourse about gun control, the idea of everyone having a loaded gun at home probably doesn't make anyone sleep better. Obviously the Swiss have a unique culture and it might not be analogous to the states in a lot of important ways, but here is the point:

America and Switzerland have similar rates of gun use for suicide.
I was about to mention Switzerland.

I am not informed on the sucide rate, however I know that it is one of the lowest crime society in the world.
Are you a criminal justice/criminolgy student?

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I was about to mention Switzerland.

I am not informed on the sucide rate, however I know that it is one of the lowest crime society in the world.
Are you a criminal justice/criminolgy student?

nope, neuroscience/psychology

The flip side to the suicide thing, however, is that Scandinavian nations have suicide rates comparable to Japan, which I have found little explanation for. Whether the rates of suicide in Switzerland are effected by some other factor, or whether it is an effect of an easily available and efficient means, is debatable.

Male suicide, in all countries, is an epidemic problem that few even know exists. Not related, but worth mentioning if for nothing else other than awareness.

EDIT: the most depressing chart in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Originally posted by inimalist
nope, neuroscience/psychology

The flip side to the suicide thing, however, is that Scandinavian nations have suicide rates comparable to Japan, which I have found little explanation for. Whether the rates of suicide in Switzerland are effected by some other factor, or whether it is an effect of an easily available and efficient means, is debatable.

Male suicide, in all countries, is an epidemic problem that few even know exists. Not related, but worth mentioning if for nothing else other than awareness.

EDIT: the most depressing chart in the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Excellent! I do wish sometimes I did psychology instead of sociology as part of my major...I had mandatory classes and I actually really liked it.

Interesting info about suicide, and interesting that Switzerland, as finland and Norway have a high rate of it. Just because one would assume, for perhaps wrong reasons, that countries such as those above would have it the lowest.

What is the police use of firearms in Canada like?
Here in Montreal, as far as I have been informed, is not common to fire guns (ironically today is a year anniversary of a murder of an 18 year old by a cop).

EDIT: There is such a disproportinate number of male suicides compared to females. How bizarre.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Lord no, your so-called deeper analysis is just sophisty.

No, it's viability.


You can't add a law that removes a specific item to prevent a certain harmful outcome, just to have something else replace that specific items negative function AND in greater numbers.


In this case, it's the gun.

Making the gun illegal has resulted in a siginficant drop in gun related violence, but it also increased non-gun related violence. In fact, after the removal, non-gun related violence increased much further beyond pre-grun-removal numbers, per capita.

You can call it sophistry, but it doesn't change the use of the data.


Originally posted by Ushgarak
There is no such coresponding increase in other crime, and in any case the whole worry is about criems with guns in the first place. The justifcation is that cops with guns are needed to stop guns- but the direct evidence proves otherwise.


No, there is. It's rather significant, at that.


I have no idea where you're getting your information from. In fact, I consider that information to be common knowledge. Even people who I work with, from the UK, know this.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The first half of your post is just garbage, btw. Your hypothetical situation, as you insist on calling it despite it not making any difference to naything, is still exactly answered by everything I said.

Facts are as simple as this:

"Britain's violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European union, it has been revealed.
Official crime figures show the UK also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa - widely considered one of the world's most dangerous countries.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html


There's also the fact that some statistics are not included in those numbers, properly. Meaning, the numbers could be in worse favor than the UK than seen. (Rapes under 16 are not counted towards violent crimes. lol. Absurd, I know.) Here's more information on data that's not included.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article7826.ece

Violent crimes certainly do occur on people younger than 16, but for some reaosn, some portions of that data are missing from the numbers.


So, it's even bleaker for the UK than even the numbers present.


Here's a nice comparison between New York City and London.

"...Recently total crime rates for London have been estimated at about seven times those of New York for a slightly smaller population and some authorities suggest these figures have been minimized....

New York and London have populations of 8 million and 7 million respectively and comparable police budgets, though New York has about 40 percent more police actually on the beat. British papers retail many incidents of British police, rather than preventing crime, being kept busy "celebrating diversity" and prosecuting politically incorrect remarks and behavior (large amounts of money and court time have been spent by the Crown Prosecution Service on cases of children who have made politically incorrect remarks in school playground fights, for instance)."

http://spectator.org/archives/2006/04/10/three-strikes-and-youre-in-lik

Odd. Figures, though minimized, are still 7 times higher. We even have more police.



If we want to get down to numbers:

"According to the study, published last year in The Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, European nations with more guns had lower murder rates. As summarized in a brief filed by several criminologists and other scholars supporting the challenge to the Washington law, the seven nations with the most guns per capita had 1.2 murders annually for every 100,000 people. The rate in the nine nations with the fewest guns was 4.4."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/weekinreview/29liptak.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2





A superficial conclusiosn would lead one to believe that more guns means less murders, per capita. Of cousre, how does this equate to cause and effect? We don't.

Here's something KidRock found:

Originally posted by KidRock
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Vault/8411/UKguns.gif


However, I'd like to see something that extends to more recent times.



Can you find something like that? I couldn't. I wonder how KR found that. But, that is a crappy example of what I thought was common knowledge.



Originally posted by KidRock
It is argued that cops need to be armed to stop innocents being shot and to stop themselves being shot. The experiences of the UK show, directly and unequivocably, that this is a lie. Paranoid worries about a person getting a gun and being 'god' un a gunless society similarly have no basis.

No, they do.

Survey shows that where there are tons of guns in person's hands, it is far less likely that someone will go on a shooting spree in that area.

Originally posted by KidRock
If there is a gun problem, the solution is not armed cops.

Indeed. That would be a non-sequitor conclusion. Even counterintuitive from a certain point of view.

It's not that you and I disagree, Ush. In fact, I think we largely agree.


However, I don't like to conclude that gun control prevents violent crime. It really doesn't. The opposite can be concluded.

I bring you the Swiss as an excellent example of a country that has a crap load of guns, but awesome homocide statistics.


Damn, it seems like I always come back to the Swiss as governing correctly. They aren't perfect, but they do do things better than others, in some areas.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Excellent! I do wish sometimes I did psychology instead of sociology as part of my major...I had mandatory classes and I actually really liked it.

I take a lot of soc/anthro classes compared to most people in my program, but ya, psych is amazing. The neuro stuff totally has me hooked, though I wish I had more of a biology background.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Interesting info about suicide, and interesting that Switzerland, as finland and Norway have a high rate of it. Just because one would assume, for perhaps wrong reasons, that countries such as those above would have it the lowest.

It astounded me for the exact same reason. Looking into the suicide thing more, I'm literally appalled at the lack of any serious research on the issue.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What is the police use of firearms in Canada like?
Here in Montreal, as far as I have been informed, is not common to fire guns (ironically today is a year anniversary of a murder of an 18 year old by a cop).

that was a year ago? I must be remembering something from longer ago...

Its ok. The only time I've ever heard of them drawing their weapons was when a friend of mine had a toy gun at night at a park, and someone called the police (thinking he was robbing my other friends).

Its better than the states, probably on all issues, but the big worry (if you are someone who routinely breaks the law) would be getting tasered or just generally getting beat up. Like the states, the police police the police, so there is essentially no accountability. A person I know was sent to the hospital for having a criminal record (which he served his time for) and the nerve to lip at a cop for stopping him unjustly (I'm sure with colourful language, etc).

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
EDIT: There is such a disproportinate number of male suicides compared to females. How bizarre.

there are some sort of anecdotal explanations offered for it, like that women are more into self-mutilation for the purpose of attention, whereas men are not looking for attention, and will pick highly fatal means. Rarely do men pop a bottle of pills, whereas this is something women do more frequently.

I think, as a man, that this is terribly inadequate. If similar numbers of whales were washing ashore as men who kill themselves every day, how long would there be before every government on the planet had enacted the most radical environmental policies?

reform mental health policy, pffft, in your dreams.

Originally posted by inimalist
There is also the case of Switzerland. They have laws mandating that all citizens of military age must have a loaded gun in their home, yet gun crime statistics are so low they aren't even kept.

Looking at them compared to America as far as gun issues go, it is day and night, even though, in the American discourse about gun control, the idea of everyone having a loaded gun at home probably doesn't make anyone sleep better. Obviously the Swiss have a unique culture and it might not be analogous to the states in a lot of important ways, but here is the point:

America and Switzerland have similar rates of gun use for suicide.

I just read this. It seems we are on the same page.





But, what about suicide in general? Does it drop suicide, period? Or does it shift the way people commit suicide? If I remember properly, it does both: it reduces suicide, in general, but there is a shift in how people committ suicide. This is logical as you are far more likely to succeed with suicide, with a gun, than without one. lol (I know, I shouldn't laugh. sorry. )

Originally posted by dadudemon
I just read this. It seems we are on the same page.

But, what about suicide in general? Does it drop suicide, period? Or does it shift the way people commit suicide? If I remember properly, it does both: it reduces suicide, in general, but there is a shift in how people committ suicide. This is logical as you are far more likely to succeed with suicide, with a gun, than without one. lol (I know, I shouldn't laugh. sorry. )

swiss suicide rates are significantly higher than American or even Canadian (who are marginally higher than the Americans)

whether or not this is due to guns or something else (It appears that the further east you head in Europe, the more suicide there is...)

The issues with guns and suicide is exactly what you said, the attempt is nearly 100% of the time successful. Its like jumping from a large building or throwing yourself in front of a subway (both of which are not good for other reasons, as many places will force your family to pay the burden of cleaning your body from public places iirc).

Like, there comes an interesting issue. Does the rate of suicide for men represent the actual number of men who don't want to live, or is it that, plus a number of people who just feel there is no other option available. Depending on how you view suicide, the former may not even exist, and all suicides may just represent people who feel there are no options.

Studies show that people are more violent, and have more violent thoughts, simply in the presence of a gun (even if the task they are performing has nothing to do with violence), so having an accessible gun, aside from just ending the lives of people who might just feel overwhelmed (re: not truly wanting to die, just momentarily fed up), but may also make a person who feels that way consider doing violence to themselves, which they would not have otherwise considered.

And yes, guns elicit this violence response more than other weapons. This is clearly cultural, and 1000 years ago it would have been swords.

Originally posted by inimalist
swiss suicide rates are significantly higher than American or even Canadian (who are marginally higher than the Americans)

whether or not this is due to guns or something else (It appears that the further east you head in Europe, the more suicide there is...)

The issues with guns and suicide is exactly what you said, the attempt is nearly 100% of the time successful. Its like jumping from a large building or throwing yourself in front of a subway (both of which are not good for other reasons, as many places will force your family to pay the burden of cleaning your body from public places iirc).

Like, there comes an interesting issue. Does the rate of suicide for men represent the actual number of men who don't want to live, or is it that, plus a number of people who just feel there is no other option available. Depending on how you view suicide, the former may not even exist, and all suicides may just represent people who feel there are no options.

Studies show that people are more violent, and have more violent thoughts, simply in the presence of a gun (even if the task they are performing has nothing to do with violence), so having an accessible gun, aside from just ending the lives of people who might just feel overwhelmed (re: not truly wanting to die, just momentarily fed up), but may also make a person who feels that way consider doing violence to themselves, which they would not have otherwise considered.

And yes, guns elicit this violence response more than other weapons. This is clearly cultural, and 1000 years ago it would have been swords.


Is it specific to guns or can it be applied to knives?


There are knives out there that are just for killing. My godbrother has these Klingon looking hand blades that are curved like a boomerrang, in his car....just in case of a traffic incident that escalates to violence. Just the look of these blades is scary as hell. If you watch Naruto, they are similar to this:

http://www.mycuteshop.com/store/images/Naruto/NarutoAsumaTrenchKnife3S.jpg


Except, the blade was MUCH longer, and the little spikes for the knuckles were much smaller and in greater numbers. (And much spikier, lol.)



Point is, that blade, which as solely designed with the purpose of killing a human or damaging a human in the shortest amount of time, possible,...wouldn't that blade elicit the same response as a gun, if not more so?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Is it specific to guns or can it be applied to knives?


There are knives out there that are just for killing. My godbrother has these Klingon looking hand blades that are curved like a boomerrang, in his car....just in case of a traffic incident that escalates to violence. Just the look of these blades is scary as hell.

yes, but not as much as with guns

I don't know that specific ceremonially ornate knives have been tested, but I do know that it is always the most sporting model of gun that is used, and not hand guns or other military style "people killing" guns (ethics boards would go nuts).

So, yes, having a knife you use as a weapon on hand not only makes you more able to access it in a situation (thus escalating a possibly non-violent situation) but would also cause violent cognitions. That being said, I normally carry an exactoknife in the car for the same reason, and its never made me want to cut anyone. I'm certainly not of the mind that your godbrother is setting himself up to be driven to violence by it being there as an environmental cue.

In my professional opinion, the weapons effect of knives, even military issued combat knives, would not be nearly as much as seen with guns, especially hand guns. Full out military weapons, obviously, but hand guns are the real culprit in all this "gun control" discourse.

ok, I'll ramble...

so, this might be due to the fact that guns are just more causal of violent cognition, but might also be due to the fact that knives, even the most combat specific (which those ornate blades have never really appeared to me), are also represented as "tools". Similar activation in the brain with regards to violence might be seen with knives and guns, but the fact that knives would be accompanied by similar activation of "tool" may regulate the effect.

EDIT: I missed the edit, so disregard my "ornate" comments, I totally imagined something different.

My answer is the same. Knives are not going to cause as much as guns, though the why would take some doing, but probably a mix of what I mentioned above and the cultural role guns play.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, but not as much as with guns

I don't know that specific ceremonially ornate knives have been tested, but I do know that it is always the most sporting model of gun that is used, and not hand guns or other military style "people killing" guns (ethics boards would go nuts).

So, yes, having a knife you use as a weapon on hand not only makes you more able to access it in a situation (thus escalating a possibly non-violent situation) but would also cause violent cognitions. That being said, I normally carry an exactoknife in the car for the same reason, and its never made me want to cut anyone. I'm certainly not of the mind that your godbrother is setting himself up to be driven to violence by it being there as an environmental cue.

In my professional opinion, the weapons effect of knives, even military issued combat knives, would not be nearly as much as seen with guns, especially hand guns. Full out military weapons, obviously, but hand guns are the real culprit in all this "gun control" discourse.

ok, I'll ramble...

so, this might be due to the fact that guns are just more causal of violent cognition, but might also be due to the fact that knives, even the most combat specific (which those ornate blades have never really appeared to me), are also represented as "tools". Similar activation in the brain with regards to violence might be seen with knives and guns, but the fact that knives would be accompanied by similar activation of "tool" may regulate the effect.

EDIT: I missed the edit, so disregard my "ornate" comments, I totally imagined something different.

My answer is the same. Knives are not going to cause as much as guns, though the why would take some doing, but probably a mix of what I mentioned above and the cultural role guns play.


Very interesting. Very interesting, indeed.

So, it would seem the individual's perceptions of guns, as a measurement of subconscious violence, is a sociological in origin?

Meaning, that people associate, more readily, a gun with killing people, than a knife...even if that "violent perception" is not being, at least to the person being measured, specifically measured for? (I included that last part beacuse, as the study indicates, if the subject is aware of what is being measured, that could taint the outcome or give less than ideal results.)






If I understand this properly, a social shift in the perceptions of guns may also shift the incidents of violent crimes where guns are involved? I may be jumping the gun, here. (I know, I'm that cool.)

As far as the graph goes, I don't think gun prohibition is a direct result of more violent crimes.

We also should keep in mind the rapid population growth in UK in that time.

In order for that graph to truly indicate guns being the cause of escalation of violence, the violence line should have shot up at the same time the prohibition shot down.

The point is, escalation of violence on the graph has been growing slowly over the years.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Very interesting. Very interesting, indeed.

So, it would seem the individual's perceptions of guns, as a measurement of subconscious violence, is a sociological in origin?

no. The measure is of violent behaviour and reported violent thoughts.

There is no way to measure anything in the subconscious at this point, aside from such indirect measures

but yes, it is not that there is anything about guns themselves, just the position they hold in society. As I said before, likely 1000 years ago, this would be seen with swords (knives I imagine would be the same as they are now, as they have always had the dual use as weapon and tool).

Originally posted by dadudemon
Meaning, that people associate, more readily, a gun with killing people, than a knife...even if that "violent perception" is not being, at least to the person being measured, specifically measured for? (I included that last part beacuse, as the study indicates, if the subject is aware of what is being measured, that could taint the outcome or give less than ideal results.)

lol, if I wanted to be a stickler for terminology...

so ya, I think you got it

Originally posted by dadudemon
If I understand this properly, a social shift in the perceptions of guns may also shift the incidents of violent crimes where guns are involved? I may be jumping the gun, here. (I know, I'm that cool.)

absolutely, and this is likely why Swiss culture, where military service is mandatory, and civilian defense is a huge part of the culture, has such low gun crime statistics, whereas American culture, with its egoism, whats mine is mine, get off my prop'rty attitude sort of promotes reactionary gun use.

to tie this more into the thread, studies have found that police, who have significant gun training and the like, are less effected by the presence of weapons.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As far as the graph goes, I don't think gun prohibition is a direct result of more violent crimes.

We also should keep in mind the rapid population growth in UK in that time.

In order for that graph to truly indicate guns being the cause of escalation of violence, the violence line should have shot up at the same time the prohibition shot down.

The point is, escalation of violence on the graph has been growing slowly over the years.

But it didn't slow when they restricted guns, which is significant.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
But it didn't slow when they restricted guns, which is significant.

Which of course is to be taken into account as well.
I also think that population growth may have contributed to the raise in crime rate, as well.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
As far as the graph goes, I don't think gun prohibition is a direct result of more violent crimes.

That's good. As long as you make it clear that it's your opinion (which you DID do) and not fact, you are much further ahead of the game than most other people on either side of the debate.


However, I both disagree and agree.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
We also should keep in mind the rapid population growth in UK in that time.

Same in the US, yet, violent crimes pre capita decreased in the US, in the same time period.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
In order for that graph to truly indicate guns being the cause of escalation of violence, the violence line should have shot up at the same time the prohibition shot down.

That's not true.

A change like that would take years to reach it's full social impact. There's the enforcement of such rules taking time, the time it takes the general public to adjust to the change, the time it takes to remove those guns from the public, etc.

These are things that take years, not just mere weeks after the law went into affect.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The point is, escalation of violence on the graph has been growing slowly over the years.

And you have no evidence for supporting that it isn't due to it not being due to the restriction of guns. In fact, the evidence is in favor of guns being restricted.


We only have to look at other locations who did something similar. Washington D.C. is an example. Similar time periods, to boot.


Didn't curb it at all...





However, all of that could be useless.

All of it could be a function of how these things are enforceed, both liberal gun laws, and restrictive gun laws. For every UK and Washington DC out there, there is probably another place that shows violence increased when laws were relaxed. Can you find such an example to support your argument?


Can anyone find counter-examples to the UK and Washington DC examples?


Originally posted by inimalist
There is no way to measure anything in the subconscious at this point, aside from such indirect measures

Yeah, I thought that this was an example of one. Surely they didn't focus directly on violent thoughts? That would really taint the test, wouldn't it?

The violence portion of it would need to be incidental to the test...at least to the subject's perception....am I right? To no do so would be to poison the sample.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, if I wanted to be a stickler for terminology...

Uh, yeah. Please DO be a stickler. I would rather you correct me for not using the right terms than you not say something at all, 9 out of 10 times.




Originally posted by inimalist
absolutely, and this is likely why Swiss culture, where military service is mandatory, and civilian defense is a huge part of the culture, has such low gun crime statistics, whereas American culture, with its egoism, whats mine is mine, get off my prop'rty attitude sort of promotes reactionary gun use.

to tie this more into the thread, studies have found that police, who have significant gun training and the like, are less effected by the presence of weapons.

That's very interesting, as well.



NOW do you see why I thought you had some sort of data on the pool hygiene? Can you BLAME me for just assuming that I thought you had some sort of study in mind? lol



Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I also think that population growth may have contributed to the raise in crime rate, as well.

Population didn't contribute. Less poverty = property realted crime. (or even less crime, for that matter. Am I right?)

The U.S. population also grew...even more so than the UK, yet, violent crime went down. The exact opposite of your conclusion on the UK.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's good. As long as you make it clear that it's your opinion (which you DID do) and not fact, you are much further ahead of the game than most other people on either side of the debate.


However, I both disagree and agree.



Same in the US, yet, violent crimes pre capita decreased in the US, in the same time period.



That's not true.

A change like that would take years to reach it's full social impact. There's the enforcement of such rules taking time, the time it takes the general public to adjust to the change, the time it takes to remove those guns from the public, etc.

These are things that take years, not just mere weeks after the law went into affect.



And you have no evidence for supporting that it isn't due to it not being due to the restriction of guns. In fact, the evidence is in favor of guns being restricted.


We only have to look at other locations who did something similar. Washington D.C. is an example. Similar time periods, to boot.


Didn't curb it at all...





However, all of that could be useless.

All of it could be a function of how these things are enforceed, both liberal gun laws, and restrictive gun laws. For every UK and Washington DC out there, there is probably another place that shows violence increased when laws were relaxed. Can you find such an example to support your argument?


Can anyone find counter-examples to the UK and Washington DC examples?




Yeah, I thought that this was an example of one. Surely they didn't focus directly on violent thoughts? That would really taint the test, wouldn't it?

The violence portion of it would need to be incidental to the test...at least to the subject's perception....am I right? To no do so would be to poison the sample.



Uh, yeah. Please DO be a stickler. I would rather you correct me for not using the right terms than you not say something at all, 9 out of 10 times.






That's very interesting, as well.



NOW do you see why I thought you had some sort of data on the pool hygiene? Can you BLAME me for just assuming that I thought you had some sort of study in mind? lol





Population didn't contribute. Less poverty = property realted crime. (or even less crime, for that matter. Am I right?)

The U.S. population also grew...even more so than the UK, yet, violent crime went down. The exact opposite of your conclusion on the UK.

My evidence relies mostly on the fact that the violence 'line' has been steady - ie, there has not been any dramatic shift in the line, despite the gun ban.
What I am suggesting is that gun ban had no real effect on the line - it has been growing steady anyway, and the ban has not disrupted the line of violence.

It neither went up, nor went down.

Like it says at the bottom of the graph, gun prohibition did not disrupt the violent trend - therefore evidence show that violent crime did not increase due to gun ban.
The commentary below graph confirms this.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
My evidence relies mostly on the fact that the violence 'line' has been steady - ie, there has not been any dramatic shift in the line, despite the gun ban.

What I am suggesting is that gun ban had no real effect on the line - it has been growing steady anyway, and the ban has not disrupted the line of violence.

It neither went up, nor went down.


So, by that reasoning, they gun ban is an illogical restriction on personal freedom.


Not to be cheeky, but...



Congratulations, you just made the case for the pro-gun fanatics.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Like it says at the bottom of the graph, gun prohibition did not disrupt the violent trend - therefore evidence show that violent crime did not increase due to gun ban.
The commentary below graph confirms this.

It's not the the gun ban increased crime, per se, I've already indicated that that is debatable. However, as you've clearly done, restricting guns did jack.


Restore the rights of the people and actually solve the problem by other means. (Even if that is restricting the way people can have guns.)







If they wanted to "crack down on crime", they would stiffen the penalty for violent crimes, enforce the penalties much more often, and increase law enforcement's effective presence.

If they REALLY wanted to stop violent crime, they'd make the penalties absurd, like....caining or death. lol


Those are just 3 ways to improve the violent crime that appears to be going out of control in the UK.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah, I thought that this was an example of one. Surely they didn't focus directly on violent thoughts? That would really taint the test, wouldn't it?

not really. Like, we do research on people's attention, and letting them know that isn't really that important.

Generally, the experimenters wouldn't inform the participants that violent action or violent thoughts were what they were looking for until after the test. This is all social psych, so I'm summarizing from text books and lectures (themselves just summations of research), but afaik, a study would go something like the following:

Participant thinks that they are playing a game against another person. They go into a room where there are various items laying about, explained as being there from a previous phys ed class or something of the like, and play a game against what they think is another person.

The game would include some choice, where the participant would get to decide how much of an aggressive act they would do against the person they are playing against. After the test, but before being told of the purpose of the experiment, participants would be interviewed to try and indirectly ascertain how aggressive or violent their thoughts were, if they were like "oh, that guy just got me, im gonna **** him good here!", or if they were more passive in their cognitive state.

The items in the room could either be a gun, a knife, or something totally unrelated. The difference in what are considered aggressive/violent actions/thoughts between the item conditions would be where the results are.

blah, I didn't mention it above, but the game is a simulation, so that the stimuli the participant experiences is controlled between subjects.

Blah, I'm thinking myself around in circles. So there may be more direct measures of something like this, but it would require fMRI or some other huge piece of equipment, skyrocketing the costs of the experiment, and ya, making it almost impossible to run what I described above. Also, it would be entirely impossible to do a fMRI study AND not inform a person what is going on. fMRI is a very protracted process, and certainly there would be no valid reason for a gun to be lying around in the magnet room.

Originally posted by dadudemon
The violence portion of it would need to be incidental to the test...at least to the subject's perception....am I right? To no do so would be to poison the sample.

No, its more that they would just need to think what is being tested is their game performance. I imagine the interview at the end would ask participants how aware they were of the relationship between the test and the measurement of aggression/violence, and if there was a significant relationship there, one might be able to argue that participants were acting as violently as they thought the experimenter wanted them too.

However, since the weapon effect is a sort of perceptual phenomenon, it is VERY possible (in fact, not doing any of the requisite tests, I would probably fall into this camp) that the participant would perceive that the experimenter wanted more violent behaviour in the conditions where the gun was present (not that they are doing so logically, blah, tell me if this is not making sense, I don't want to write a book if you are following).

The big issue in psych research is people acting how they think you want them to act. What they think you want is as likely to be affected by the presence of a gun as is what they think is an appropriate behavioural reaction in the simulated game.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Uh, yeah. Please DO be a stickler. I would rather you correct me for not using the right terms than you not say something at all, 9 out of 10 times.

I would if it was important here. Its more the issue of bridging the really formal and academic way that this stuff is presented and represented in my brain with the way people without that rarefied knowledge understand it. If something was off in your understanding, I'd tell you.

Originally posted by dadudemon
That's very interesting, as well.

NOW do you see why I thought you had some sort of data on the pool hygiene? Can you BLAME me for just assuming that I thought you had some sort of study in mind? lol


I'm a professional research neuroscientist... not a recreational pool chemist...

I can cite few studies that aren't about human behaviour

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, by that reasoning, they gun ban is an illogical restriction on personal freedom.


Not to be cheeky, but...



Congratulations, you just made the case for the pro-gun fanatics.
I beg to differ. Japan is the lowest crime society in the world, and it has gun control - ie, as per their law guns are banned for personal ownership.

Equally, Switzerland is equally very low crime society in the world and everyone has a gun there.

Nothing to do with librety or personal freedom but with the culture, as majority criminologists would agree.

This leads me on to the graph at hand, which indicates the raise in violent crime despite gun laws.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
My evidence relies mostly on the fact that the violence 'line' has been steady - ie, there has not been any dramatic shift in the line, despite the gun ban.
What I am suggesting is that gun ban had no real effect on the line - it has been growing steady anyway, and the ban has not disrupted the line of violence.

It neither went up, nor went down.

Like it says at the bottom of the graph, gun prohibition did not disrupt the violent trend - therefore evidence show that violent crime did not increase due to gun ban.
The commentary below graph confirms this.

for sure!

with correlational data (ie: data that doesn't explicitly control for things in experimental settings to determine actual cause) that relationship can go either way, or can be caused by something totally unrelated.

So, the gun ban might cause more non-gun violence, but from that chart, it is equally as likely that non-gun violence caused the ban, or that, as you say, some third/fourth issue is responsible for both in a different relationship.

Stats are so easy to manipulate....

Originally posted by inimalist
not really. Like, we do research on people's attention, and letting them know that isn't really that important.

Generally, the experimenters wouldn't inform the participants that violent action or violent thoughts were what they were looking for until after the test. This is all social psych, so I'm summarizing from text books and lectures (themselves just summations of research), but afaik, a study would go something like the following:

Participant thinks that they are playing a game against another person. They go into a room where there are various items laying about, explained as being there from a previous phys ed class or something of the like, and play a game against what they think is another person.

The game would include some choice, where the participant would get to decide how much of an aggressive act they would do against the person they are playing against. After the test, but before being told of the purpose of the experiment, participants would be interviewed to try and indirectly ascertain how aggressive or violent their thoughts were, if they were like "oh, that guy just got me, im gonna **** him good here!", or if they were more passive in their cognitive state.

The items in the room could either be a gun, a knife, or something totally unrelated. The difference in what are considered aggressive/violent actions/thoughts between the item conditions would be where the results are.

blah, I didn't mention it above, but the game is a simulation, so that the stimuli the participant experiences is controlled between subjects.

Blah, I'm thinking myself around in circles. So there may be more direct measures of something like this, but it would require fMRI or some other huge piece of equipment, skyrocketing the costs of the experiment, and ya, making it almost impossible to run what I described above. Also, it would be entirely impossible to do a fMRI study AND not inform a person what is going on. fMRI is a very protracted process, and certainly there would be no valid reason for a gun to be lying around in the magnet room.



No, its more that they would just need to think what is being tested is their game performance. I imagine the interview at the end would ask participants how aware they were of the relationship between the test and the measurement of aggression/violence, and if there was a significant relationship there, one might be able to argue that participants were acting as violently as they thought the experimenter wanted them too.

However, since the weapon effect is a sort of perceptual phenomenon, it is VERY possible (in fact, not doing any of the requisite tests, I would probably fall into this camp) that the participant would perceive that the experimenter wanted more violent behaviour in the conditions where the gun was present (not that they are doing so logically, blah, tell me if this is not making sense, I don't want to write a book if you are following).

The big issue in psych research is people acting how they think you want them to act. What they think you want is as likely to be affected by the presence of a gun as is what they think is an appropriate behavioural reaction in the simulated game.

No, you make perfect sense.

You even hit on what I was trying to get at.

Surely there's a better way to test for a violent response with a gun, versus another object.


But, if you say it's valid, at least to a certain degree, then it is very much applicable to our conversation.



Originally posted by inimalist
I would if it was important here. Its more the issue of bridging the really formal and academic way that this stuff is presented and represented in my brain with the way people without that rarefied knowledge understand it. If something was off in your understanding, I'd tell you.

I don't want you to be an a**hole, but I certainly want you to shed light, share you knowledge, etc. Something like, "yes, that would be what they call intrinsic behavior." Then I go, "oh wow. It has a name!"



Originally posted by inimalist
I'm a professional research neuroscientist... not a recreational pool chemist...

I can cite few studies that aren't about human behaviour


Puh leez. Don't sell yourself so short. Many times, conversations here (GDF) wouldn't be the same without you, regardless of the topic.

Originally posted by inimalist
for sure!

with correlational data (ie: data that doesn't explicitly control for things in experimental settings to determine actual cause) that relationship can go either way, or can be caused by something totally unrelated.

So, the gun ban might cause more non-gun violence, but from that chart, it is equally as likely that non-gun violence caused the ban, or that, as you say, some third/fourth issue is responsible for both in a different relationship.

Stats are so easy to manipulate....

Absolutely.

What would be more appropriate to see is the gun related crime after the ban.
Guns don't cause people to wanna be violent, they're marely a means of doing so.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you make perfect sense.

You even hit on what I was trying to get at.

Surely there's a better way to test for a violent response with a gun, versus another object.


But, if you say it's valid, at least to a certain degree, then it is very much applicable to our conversation.

lol, it depends on what you are asking is valid

for instance, I would say that while all measures of aggression to date do measure "arousal" which may make people act aggressively, there is zero connection between lab representations of aggression and violence in the real world.

So, the caveat is, while people may play the game more aggressively, this is not the same as saying they would be more violent in real life, because there are so many other issues at play. That one is still playing the game within the "rules" when they make their most aggressive acts is entirely conceptually different from someone breaking the law and acting violent.

lol, I would say it is the most valid that we have, but not perfect in any way. Thats another tl:dr though

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't want you to be an a**hole, but I certainly want you to shed light, share you knowledge, etc. Something like, "yes, that would be what they call intrinsic behavior." Then I go, "oh wow. It has a name!"

meh, I like concepts better than terms. What we are talking about is "the weapons effect", not to be confused with "the weapons bias".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Puh leez. Don't sell yourself so short. Many times, conversations here (GDF) wouldn't be the same without you, regardless of the topic.

oh, don't worry, I'm still arrogant enough for the both of us

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Guns don't cause people to wanna be violent, they're marely a means of doing so.

actually, thats what me and dadudemon are discussing right now

from studies, it appears that the presence of a gun does prime violent action in people, making them more likely to be violent if a situation were to present itself

I don't know if that is what you would deem "wanting" to be violent, though...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
I beg to differ. Japan is the lowest crime society in the world, and it has gun control - ie, as per their law guns are banned for personal ownership.

No. You are incorrect.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita


Japan also has a significant number of gun related deaths and violent crimes. People still have guns, there, and they still shoot each other up.


I couldn't find any "violent crimes per capita" statistics for Japan. At least, none that were recent.



Can you find those?


EDIT!!!! You can own a gun in japan, legally.


Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Equally, Switzerland is equally very low crime society in the world and everyone has a gun there.

You're still making a case for taking guns away from citizens being unnecessary.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Nothing to do with librety or personal freedom but with the culture, as majority criminologists would agree.



So, you're still for gun control even though you freely admit that gun control does jack to prevent violent crimes?


How does that make sense?



I'm for gun control only IF if prevents violent cimres...but, after doing my own damn research, for once, I am siding with gun advocates.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
This leads me on to the graph at hand, which indicates the raise in violent crime despite gun laws.

Meaning, you're all for ownership of guns and gun control is largely useless?

Originally posted by inimalist
actually, thats what me and dadudemon are discussing right now

from studies, it appears that the presence of a gun does prime violent action in people, making them more likely to be violent if a situation were to present itself

I don't know if that is what you would deem "wanting" to be violent, though...

What I mean is that person owning a gun will not be more violent because of the fact that he/she has one.
Although your point is valid and should be considered - like I said, we have spectrum of USA and Switzerland, Switzerland being the country that has the most gun ownership than anywhere in the world, and being one of the lowest crime societies at the same time.

Perhaps there is more to do with the culture of the said country than we release...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
What I mean is that person owning a gun will be more violent because of the fact that he has one.
Although your point is valid and should be considered - like I said, we have spectrum of USA and Switzerland, Switzerland being the country that has the most gun ownership than anywhere in the world, and being one of the lowest crime societies.

Perhaps there is more to do with the culture of the said country than we release...

no, we are totally on the same page

that police training can make people less likely to suffer the "weapons effect" is essentially proof that culture does mediate these things.

Being on the topic, I am totally in favor of gun control for pragmatic reasons. When we have the Swiss culture, sure, lets talk about private SMG ownership, but as it stands, collectors are basically stock-pilers for criminals, there is no ability to trace illegal guns/bullets, etc.

Also, even though the swiss have mandatory gun ownership, they are dramatically behind america in guns per capita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, it depends on what you are asking is valid

for instance, I would say that while all measures of aggression to date do measure "arousal" which may make people act aggressively, there is zero connection between lab representations of aggression and violence in the real world.

So, the caveat is, while people may play the game more aggressively, this is not the same as saying they would be more violent in real life, because there are so many other issues at play. That one is still playing the game within the "rules" when they make their most aggressive acts is entirely conceptually different from someone breaking the law and acting violent.

lol, I would say it is the most valid that we have, but not perfect in any way. Thats another tl:dr though

Sometimes, validity comes in degrees with these.


And, no, nothing you've written has been a tl:dr. Even the post I wrote that one time to your political thread which was a tl:dr, I read. I typed up a HUGE reply, effed up somewhow, double posted, and deleted the wrong post. So, even then, it wasn't a tl:dr, on this end...I was just an idiot.

Back on topic, I think I follow this study better, now.

In fact, I would be more inclined to throw out this study as useful, than make it useful.

To me, this seems related to violence in video games and this is how: nice violent thoughts due to "x", but weak correlation to actual violence in the real world.


There's probably something real about the study...but it weakly translates to the real world, if at all.



Originally posted by inimalist
meh, I like concepts better than terms.

I like them both. I like both because it is a helluva lot easier to research a term used by someone than to research a concept.


Then, once you learn enough about it, you can pontificate. AHA!

Originally posted by inimalist
What we are talking about is "the weapons effect", not to be confused with "the weapons bias".

AHA!

http://www.springerlink.com/content/j632241u4143788k/

vs.

http://www.psych.uncc.edu/pagoolka/cdps287.pdf





Originally posted by inimalist
oh, don't worry, I'm still arrogant enough for the both of us

Wow. That's saying something...I'm a really arrogant prick.



















Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Perhaps there is more to do with the culture of the said country than we release...

Boom.


You hit it, right there.



Part of the reason for such low crime in Japan is the "shame factor" that crime brings the family. That is playing a lesser and lesser role in Japan as Japan's youth become less "honorable"...at least that's what the old geisers say over there.




And, Japan DOES have massive crime. One work: Yakuza. So famous that even a caveman can do it. Wait....wrong commerical.

Originally posted by inimalist
no, we are totally on the same page

that police training can make people less likely to suffer the "weapons effect" is essentially proof that culture does mediate these things.

Being on the topic, I am totally in favor of gun control for pragmatic reasons. When we have the Swiss culture, sure, lets talk about private SMG ownership, but as it stands, collectors are basically stock-pilers for criminals, there is no ability to trace illegal guns/bullets, etc.

Also, even though the swiss have mandatory gun ownership, they are dramatically behind america in guns per capita.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_gun_ownership

You're right, US is way ahead. It's a strange list, though. Strange in terms of very surprising. Look how high Finland and Sweden are.
I would have never guessed.

It would be interesting to see France. I am sure that guns are illegal there (although I could be wrong) yet their police is armed.

Does anyone have any statistics on where police are armed and where they are not?
That would be very interesting to compare.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No. You are incorrect.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita


Japan also has a significant number of gun related deaths and violent crimes. People still have guns, there, and they still shoot each other up.


I couldn't find any "violent crimes per capita" statistics for Japan. At least, none that were recent.



Can you find those?


EDIT!!!! You can own a gun in japan, legally.




You're still making a case for taking guns away from citizens being unnecessary.





So, you're still for gun control even though you freely admit that gun control does jack to prevent violent crimes?


How does that make sense?



I'm for gun control only IF if prevents violent cimres...but, after doing my own damn research, for once, I am siding with gun advocates.



Meaning, you're all for ownership of guns and gun control is largely useless?

Those are not gun statistcs, but violent crimes ones.

I have a this book on my bookshelf from my University days, not sure if you can access it anywhere online.

http://www.palgrave.com/products/title.aspx?PID=269643

EDIT - You'll be amazed to read that a sagnifican percentage of crimes in Japan are commited by forgeiners in the country.

WTF?

double post.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Does anyone have any statistics on where police are armed and where they are not?
That would be very interesting to compare.

Yes.



The American police are heavily armed.

http://www.steroidtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/ronnie.jpg

http://www.movementarian.com/wp-content/ronniecoleman.JPG


















1234






But, no, there are no stats out there that I could find. I already looked for this, earlier today.



Could you find anything on violent crimes, per capita, for Japan?

Originally posted by dadudemon
In fact, I would be more inclined to throw out this study as useful, than make it useful.

throw it out in favor of what though?

Psychology is a very young science, and comparable in scope only to quantum and astrophysics.

There are literally too many variables in any situation for the type of specificity that you want.

It would be like saying physics isn't useful because they can't predict how a truck load of ping pong balls will bounce and roll during a 76 car pile up on the highway.

No science is in the business of describing real life events.

Even at that, I am VERY skeptical of science for a scientist, so it is sort of a double edged sword when I say stuff. I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't think it was relevant, but my warning was more to prevent any sort of "oh, they proved this in a lab, so anyone around a gun is a maniac". That guns cause arousal and lead to people thinking more violent thoughts, imho, totally valid and supported by the evidence.

The only issue is that you cannot then say: "people in the real world will act more violently in this situation because there is a gun around". I do believe it is fair to say that, in general, guns prime violent action.

It is actually almost identical to video game violence, but ya, huge topic with LOTS of research. Best example I can give you to try and tie the two together: have you ever thrown your controller after an INTENSE gaming session. Have you ever snapped at your wife because she interrupted you just at that specific time when you were so in to the game, that you immediately apologized afterward knowing you had done something wrong. That can all be mediated by being calm, or whatever, however, it is a rise in aggressive behaviour due to environmental cues raising arousal. Guns are likely to behave the same way.

Originally posted by inimalist
throw it out in favor of what though?


This:


We bring together a group of 100 people.


We give each person one of the three items:

A loaded gun.

A bowie knife.

A pencil and paper. (For drawing.)




We then ask the persons to make as much money as possible in the next 24 hours or else they die by hanging.



We then count the amount of actual violence where someone is actually hurt by the person and their item.




Originally posted by inimalist
Psychology is a very young science, and comparable in scope only to quantum and astrophysics.

Even at that, I would put even quatum physics at almost double the age of psychology with Faraday's work.......unless you consider Wundt's work...damn...Okay, they are about the same.

I think we've come further with pschology than we have with quantum physics.

Astrophysics is still older than that. Much older. Math and Astroyphysics is hundreds of years old, if not over a thousand. (Depending on how specific you want to get.)



So, yes, pscyhology is probably the younges, by a significant margin, compared to the others.


Originally posted by inimalist
There are literally too many variables in any situation for the type of specificity that you want.

It would be like saying physics isn't useful because they can't predict how a truck load of ping pong balls will bounce and roll during a 76 car pile up on the highway.


But we can actually figure that out with general accuracy with computer models and collision models.





I know what you're saying, though.

That's why I proposed a "real world" scenario for figuring this gun violence perception out....thought that was mostly jest.



Originally posted by inimalist
No science is in the business of describing real life events.

Even at that, I am VERY skeptical of science for a scientist, so it is sort of a double edged sword when I say stuff. I wouldn't have brought it up if I didn't think it was relevant, but my warning was more to prevent any sort of "oh, they proved this in a lab, so anyone around a gun is a maniac". That guns cause arousal and lead to people thinking more violent thoughts, imho, totally valid and supported by the evidence.

I'm a bit confused then.

Is there another study to show that violent thoughts from that arrousal increased violent actions? That would be the bride that connects this study to the real world.

Originally posted by inimalist
The only issue is that you cannot then say: "people in the real world will act more violently in this situation because there is a gun around".

Yeah. That's what I was getting at. It seems likely that they wouldn't act more violent at all. They'd probably be more cautious.



I have an idea.


Do a test that forces people to be put into a room that causes conflict.


Have each situation mapped to specific types of people, based on prelim tests. Include a passive, active, problem solver, and a violent person, in each situation.


Then, put in the center of the room a pillow, a knife, a gun, a swimming noodle, 2 pairs of boxing gloves, etc.


Set the situation up that makes the people want to use said items.




That actually reminds me of a movie I saw recently: The Killing Room.



Originally posted by inimalist
I do believe it is fair to say that, in general, guns prime violent action.

Guns prime violent action...but...



do they actually cause in increase in violent action, or will the violent actions occur anyway, independent of guns present.

Originally posted by inimalist
It is actually almost identical to video game violence, but ya, huge topic with LOTS of research. Best example I can give you to try and tie the two together: have you ever thrown your controller after an INTENSE gaming session.

No. But, I've seen a shitload of peope do it. Not with violent video games, either. They just get pissed.

It's the arrousal portion of that game, isn't it? The desire to succeed and then the catastrophic/devastating failure. It damages or approaches the damage to self-perception. Am I right?

Originally posted by inimalist
Have you ever snapped at your wife because she interrupted you just at that specific time when you were so in to the game, that you immediately apologized afterward knowing you had done something wrong.

No.

Seriously.

But, I know what you're talking about.

My older sister turned over my Super Nintendo when I was about to get the highest most uber score ever on Kirby's Avalanche. My score was so high the the score counter thing ran out of space and had to go back to 000000000. Seriously.

I punched my sister in the shoulder for doing that, because I was so close to beating my friend's record, which as far I a can tell, no one else in the world as duplicated...beacuse no one gives a shit about that game.

Originally posted by inimalist
That can all be mediated by being calm, or whatever, however, it is a rise in aggressive behaviour due to environmental cues raising arousal. Guns are likely to behave the same way.

I would reason that they can also sober people up and even deter acting. Would you not agree?

In the scenario I persented, that one not a smart ass one, it would seem that the people would rather face the consequence for not using the gun, then to use the gun...if they were locked into an observation room, similar to what it was in "The Killing Room."


If you haven't seen that movie, watch it, and post your thoughts on the character's actions' validity. Yes, I am serious.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Could you find anything on violent crimes, per capita, for Japan?

http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/crime.html

More significant here is the clearance rate. Japanese cops solve (or at least make a conviction for) more crimes than in America. Which probably has an effect on the amount of crime, if you're more likely to get in trouble you're less likely to take the risk.

Most crime in Japan is of the non-violent variety. The site credits this to gun control (there's an obvious bias present, however), society and the Yakuza. As far as the Yakuza is concerned violent crime has too high a risk for its return and try to keep their people from being involved in it, they're also concerned with cultural values.

http://www.jref.com/society/foreign_crime_in_japan.shtml

If you scroll down a bit this site suggests a strong cultural factor in Japanese crime rates. Per capita foreigners are arrested for a lot of crime in Japan (though note: Japan is fairly racist especially towards other Asian nationalities which would skew arrest rates).

Originally posted by dadudemon
This:

We bring together a group of 100 people.


We give each person one of the three items:

A loaded gun.

A bowie knife.

A pencil and paper. (For drawing.)


We then ask the persons to make as much money as possible in the next 24 hours or else they die by hanging.


We then count the amount of actual violence where someone is actually hurt by the person and their item.

No offense, but that seems like a really stupid way of studying anything. It would never apply outside of the experiment.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/crime.html

More significant here is the clearance rate. Japanese cops solve (or at least make a conviction for) more crimes than in America. Which probably has an effect on the amount of crime, if you're more likely to get in trouble you're less likely to take the risk.

Most crime in Japan is of the non-violent variety. The site credits this to gun control (there's an obvious bias present, however), society and the Yakuza. As far as the Yakuza is concerned violent crime has too high a risk for its return and try to keep their people from being involved in it, they're also concerned with cultural values.

http://www.jref.com/society/foreign_crime_in_japan.shtml

If you scroll down a bit this site suggests a strong cultural factor in Japanese crime rates. Per capita foreigners are arrested for a lot of crime in Japan (though note: Japan is fairly racist especially towards other Asian nationalities which would skew arrest rates).

Good finding, batman.

I got this as well http://www.jref.com/society/foreign_crime_in_japan.shtml

Not sure if it is at all reliable...

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
http://www.bookmice.net/darkchilde/japan/crime.html

More significant here is the clearance rate. Japanese cops solve (or at least make a conviction for) more crimes than in America. Which probably has an effect on the amount of crime, if you're more likely to get in trouble you're less likely to take the risk.

Most crime in Japan is of the non-violent variety. The site credits this to gun control (there's an obvious bias present, however), society and the Yakuza. As far as the Yakuza is concerned violent crime has too high a risk for its return and try to keep their people from being involved in it, they're also concerned with cultural values.

http://www.jref.com/society/foreign_crime_in_japan.shtml

If you scroll down a bit this site suggests a strong cultural factor in Japanese crime rates. Per capita foreigners are arrested for a lot of crime in Japan (though note: Japan is fairly racist especially towards other Asian nationalities which would skew arrest rates).


I don't see a violent crimes number, though.


That would be rapes; thefts with knives, guns, beat downs, etc.; battery cases, murders, etc.


That category is a rather large category of crime.


That's the number I was looking for.



And, yes, I read the same thing you did about it being a cultural thing. They don't want to bring dishonor to the family. However, lately, violent crime is going up in Japan.






To make the comparison, we need violent crimes per capita...in order to keep it within comparison to the US and UK debate that we are having.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't see a violent crimes number, though.


That would be rapes; thefts with knives, guns, beat downs, etc.; battery cases, murders, etc.


That category is a rather large category of crime.


That's the number I was looking for.



And, yes, I read the same thing you did about it being a cultural thing. They don't want to bring dishonor to the family. However, lately, violent crime is going up in Japan.






To make the comparison, we need violent crimes per capita...in order to keep it within comparison to the US and UK debate that we are having.

In 1990 larceny formed 65.1 percent of the total crimes with negligent homicide or injury as 26.2 percent of crimes. Although Japan has far fewer people than the U.S., comparisons are still possible. Japan has aground 1.3 robberies per 100,000 people. By comparison, the U.S. has 233 per 100,000 people (England has 65.8 and West Germany 48.6).

The Japanese murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000 people; West German has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the U.S. 8.7 per 100,000 people.


Obviously a bit out of date by now.

Here's another angle on crime in Japan.

Gun control laws are very strict but there are fairly few police per capita.
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4756

But remember statistics also say that Japan's willingness to enforce adultery laws might be the reason for low crime.
http://christianparty.net/murdrateworld.htm

Simple murder per capita in 2000 for 64 countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In 1990 larceny formed 65.1 percent of the total crimes with negligent homicide or injury as 26.2 percent of crimes. Although Japan has far fewer people than the U.S., comparisons are still possible. Japan has aground 1.3 robberies per 100,000 people. By comparison, the U.S. has 233 per 100,000 people (England has 65.8 and West Germany 48.6).

The Japanese murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000 people; West German has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the U.S. 8.7 per 100,000 people.


Obviously a bit out of date by now.

Yeah.


Too old. They were preaching violent crimes increasing as far back as 1998 and it continued as far as I could see, in arcticles as late as 2004.


Kind of frustrates me, though, that I couldn't find recent "violent crime" stats for Japan.


What you're giving are specific types of violent cimes. I'm looking for violent crimes per capita.






Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Here's another angle on crime in Japan.

Gun control laws are very strict but there are fairly few police per capita.
http://www.japanprobe.com/?p=4756

But remember statistics also say that Japan's willingness to enforce adultery laws might be the reason for low crime.
http://christianparty.net/murdrateworld.htm

Simple murder per capita in 2000 for 64 countries.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita


Still not what I'm looking for and it's stilll not fully applicable to the general gun control idea that gun control does jack to affect violent crimes, on the whole.

I NEED THAT DATA!...AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!


*commits suicide with one of the 90 per 100 guns available within the US*

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No offense, but that seems like a really stupid way of studying anything. It would never apply outside of the experiment.


And here I was, defending you everytime you made a sarcastic/smartass remark.


Just so you don't think I am lying, I mention twice in that very same post that it was jest and then smartassery.


Originally posted by dadudemon
thought that was mostly jest.

Typo...it's supposed to be "though". Note: I type "thought" instead of "though" quite often.




Originally posted by dadudemon
In the scenario I persented, that one not a smart ass one

So. Just to make it clear, I was being a smartass.


And, no, it would still have more real world validity than the lab experiment with post-event thoughts and feelings.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Even at that, I would put even quatum physics at almost double the age of psychology with Faraday's work.......unless you consider Wundt's work...damn...Okay, they are about the same.

I think we've come further with pschology than we have with quantum physics.

Astrophysics is still older than that. Much older. Math and Astroyphysics is hundreds of years old, if not over a thousand. (Depending on how specific you want to get.)

So, yes, pscyhology is probably the younges, by a significant margin, compared to the others.

By scope I meant more along the lines of: trying to explain the behaviour of the most complex creature interacting in the most complex environment known with more variables than are knowable. Add in the biological aspect of neuroscience and it is the task of understanding the most complex known structure in the universe, besides the universe itself.

I don't think we have come anywhere with psychology. The death of structuralism will be a start, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

Psych is defiantly older than quantum physics. Psychophysics, the stuff I'm in right now, goes back at least to 1860.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I'm a bit confused then.

Is there another study to show that violent thoughts from that arrousal increased violent actions? That would be the bride that connects this study to the real world.

no

that study would be unethical

let me be clear, the only way that it wouldn't be a laboratory measure of violence was if a participant was provoked to actually cause violence on a person in a real world setting.

Anything else suffers from being an experimental definition of violence or aggression.

I imagine, however, interviews with murders and other violent criminals would reveal that they had many more violent cognitions than the average person prior to committing their crime. And violence essentially requires arousal (unless in really specific cases), though arousal doesn't necessarily cause violence.

Being able to elicit such arousal, with the accompaniment of self expressed aggressive thoughts, with experimental measures of aggressive behaviour, to me, seems like a fairly strong body of evidence.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yeah. That's what I was getting at. It seems likely that they wouldn't act more violent at all. They'd probably be more cautious.

That isn't even supported by the evidence we do have

I disagree entirely

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have an idea.


Do a test that forces people to be put into a room that causes conflict.


Have each situation mapped to specific types of people, based on prelim tests. Include a passive, active, problem solver, and a violent person, in each situation.


Then, put in the center of the room a pillow, a knife, a gun, a swimming noodle, 2 pairs of boxing gloves, etc.


Set the situation up that makes the people want to use said items.

seriously?

how many problems do you want me to list?

no offense, but they send you to school for 4+ years to learn how to design psych experiments...

Originally posted by dadudemon
Guns prime violent action...but...

do they actually cause in increase in violent action, or will the violent actions occur anyway, independent of guns present.

as far as the evidence is concerned, yes

short of setting raged out experimental participants loose on unsuspecting civilians with a loaded firearm, it is pretty much impossible to know any better than we do now

however, I need not even bring up the anecdotal evidence

Originally posted by dadudemon
It's the arrousal portion of that game, isn't it? The desire to succeed and then the catastrophic/devastating failure. It damages or approaches the damage to self-perception. Am I right?

not really, it just creates an autonomic response. Your body is actually at peak performance when under just a little bit of stress, so if you are doing really well at a game, you are "stressed", but in a good sense. However, this stress can also cause more aggressive behaviour.

Continuous failure, like getting so pissed because you die on a level over and over again might have some ego part, but I don't think it would be huge.

I really don't think the mechanism behind the phenomenon is social at all, I think it is just a biological mechanism that helped us in the Savannah, but sort of mucks up life in the 'burbs.

Originally posted by dadudemon
My score was so high the the score counter thing ran out of space and had to go back to 000000000. Seriously.

wow

never played it though

Originally posted by dadudemon
I would reason that they can also sober people up and even deter acting. Would you not agree?

reason away

I do not believe guns deescalate violent or non-violent situations.

Originally posted by dadudemon
In the scenario I persented, that one not a smart ass one, it would seem that the people would rather face the consequence for not using the gun, then to use the gun...if they were locked into an observation room, similar to what it was in "The Killing Room."

I don't think it would be possible to have the slightest clue what would happen in that scenario. I certainly would need a way more detailed explanation of what is going to happen, but I think you would have a lot of trouble getting a group of strangers to kill one another...

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you haven't seen that movie, watch it, and post your thoughts on the character's actions' validity. Yes, I am serious.

I'll see if I can find a synopsis, but like, dude, I study human behaviour. Let me skip to the end, its wrong.

Did you see 300? That was a movie about Sparta and they didn't care to get the facts right. Entertainment media is certainly not combing the annals of "The Journal of Experimental Psychology" or "Current Directions in Psychological Science" for inspiration. It sounds like the movie is trying to make a philosophical point anyways, meaning the characters probably represent archetypes, which would dictate their behaviour, not psychology.

(argh, a lot of that sounds harsh, sorry to not sugar coat it, but ya, you can't dismiss evidence you don't like man. I had to accept psychosis and lung cancer from marijuana, maybe you have to accept guns make people a little more violent)...

Originally posted by inimalist
By scope I meant more along the lines of: trying to explain the behaviour of the most complex creature interacting in the most complex environment known with more variables than are knowable. Add in the biological aspect of neuroscience and it is the task of understanding the most complex known structure in the universe, besides the universe itself.

I don't think we have come anywhere with psychology. The death of structuralism will be a start, but I haven't figured out how to do that yet.

Psych is defiantly older than quantum physics. Psychophysics, the stuff I'm in right now, goes back at least to 1860.

No, Quantum physics goes back to Farady and his cathode rays. That was 1830s. But to argue these would be for me to miss the point.



I still think we are much further long with the human mind than we are with astro and quantum physics.

But we each come from those backgrounds: me physics, you psychology.



Originally posted by inimalist
no

that study would be unethical

let me be clear, the only way that it wouldn't be a laboratory measure of violence was if a participant was provoked to actually cause violence on a person in a real world setting.

Anything else suffers from being an experimental definition of violence or aggression.

I imagine, however, interviews with murders and other violent criminals would reveal that they had many more violent cognitions than the average person prior to committing their crime. And violence essentially requires arousal (unless in really specific cases), though arousal doesn't necessarily cause violence.

Being able to elicit such arousal, with the accompaniment of self expressed aggressive thoughts, with experimental measures of aggressive behaviour, to me, seems like a fairly strong body of evidence.

So how can we cross that bridge if we are bound by ethics.


Originally posted by inimalist
That isn't even supported by the evidence we do have

I disagree entirely

So where is this bridge study I was referring to earlier? Bridge the gap, for me, between violent perceptions and thoughts, and actual violent actions, in context with a gun.

I don't think we can as no study exists.


As you said, "unethical".


Originally posted by inimalist
seriously?

how many problems do you want me to list?

no offense, but they send you to school for 4+ years to learn how to design psych experiments...

Yes. DEFINITELY list all of the problems.

How else would you test for differences in actual violent behavior when a gun is involved, versus other items?

Design a superior experiment and guess the outcome.



Originally posted by inimalist
as far as the evidence is concerned, yes

short of setting raged out experimental participants loose on unsuspecting civilians with a loaded firearm, it is pretty much impossible to know any better than we do now

however, I need not even bring up the anecdotal evidence

But we need to test normal humans, though.

I want to see how normal peeps act. Are those thoughts you spoke of earlier actually going to be acted on?

I don't think so. I think it is more of a study of association rather than their own actual actions.



Originally posted by inimalist
not really, it just creates an autonomic response. Your body is actually at peak performance when under just a little bit of stress, so if you are doing really well at a game, you are "stressed", but in a good sense. However, this stress can also cause more aggressive behaviour.

Continuous failure, like getting so pissed because you die on a level over and over again might have some ego part, but I don't think it would be huge.

I really don't think the mechanism behind the phenomenon is social at all, I think it is just a biological mechanism that helped us in the Savannah, but sort of mucks up life in the 'burbs.

AHA!


But I disagree on ego not being very big.


It's huge when your friend is right there watching with several other people. Failure in front of them is devastating to the ego.

Translate that to an online FPS like Halo 3. You're with your squad mates and you get pwned and t-bagged, over and over. Your ego has been f***ed in the face....right in the bullet wound, to be exact...and then teabagged.

Originally posted by inimalist
wow

never played it though


lol

You're response made me laugh. Even if you were serious, it still seems very disingenuous. The game is like Tetris 2.



Originally posted by inimalist
reason away

I do not believe guns deescalate violent or non-violent situations.


They'd all make a pact to die together instead of commit murder, out of their own sense of morality.

Other groups would kill the person wanting to kill everyone else, then reason to let themselves be killed by the controllers.

The people in the groups with the pillow or other not-lethal items would swiftly and quickly complete the conflicting task, even if it required degradation of sorts.

These are my guesses.


Originally posted by inimalist
I don't think it would be possible to have the slightest clue what would happen in that scenario. I certainly would need a way more detailed explanation of what is going to happen, but I think you would have a lot of trouble getting a group of strangers to kill one another...

I don't think it would be very much trouble to get some of the groups to do so if failure to complete the task resulted in something catastrophic such as dismemberment or death to all participants.

Even better would be death to their family members.


You could setup the scenario to put blanks in the gun and make the blade extremely dull, or something. It still wouldn't be ethical...by any stretch.

el oh el.


But that's the point of the experiment. To test what people would ACTUALLY do instead of guessing what their thoughts would translate to when that guessing could be a fallacy.



Originally posted by inimalist
I'll see if I can find a synopsis, but like, dude, I study human behaviour. Let me skip to the end, its wrong.

I know this.


And, watch the film. It's good. It is almost completely free of little mistakes like prop placement, breathing dead people, etc.

Originally posted by inimalist
Did you see 300? That was a movie about Sparta and they didn't care to get the facts right.

This isn't one of those films. It is much lower budget and focuses more on psychology and manipulation than it does on effects and yelling.

Originally posted by inimalist
Entertainment media is certainly not combing the annals of "The Journal of Experimental Psychology" or "Current Directions in Psychological Science" for inspiration.

This film is about an actual experimentation that was undertaken by the U.S. but was later canceled due to obvious ethical concerns. It really was based on experimental psychology. Does it have you interested, now?

You'll still find faults with it. I found faults with it and like I say, my weakest subject is psychology, so you'll find plenty of faults, but I dare say that you will be appreciative of the psychological conflict the characters experience and what the experimenters are doing.

Originally posted by inimalist
It sounds like the movie is trying to make a philosophical point anyways, meaning the characters probably represent archetypes, which would dictate their behaviour, not psychology.

Yes and no.



You watch movies, so watch it for the sake of entertainment. The movie is based on what little information we had on those experiments the US did back in the 50s. (People think the US is all moral and does the ethical thing in war. Bullshit, by a long shot. We burn Muslim combantant bodies, face up, towards Mecca, to draw out Taliban combatants from their hiding places, while yelling on a megaphone that they are cowards for not avenging their brethern's honor. Don't tell me that they don't do that: I saw the mother f***ing video of them doing that on machovideos.com, lol. There's also the firebombings we did in WWII. So, the US has bloody hands, just as Russia, just as Japan, just as China. We are just better about sweeping it under the rug.)

Originally posted by inimalist
(argh, a lot of that sounds harsh, sorry to not sugar coat it, but ya, you can't dismiss evidence you don't like man. I had to accept psychosis and lung cancer from marijuana, maybe you have to accept guns make people a little more violent)...

If I were here to just be right all the time, I wouldn't post, because I'd be right all the time and pontification gets boring. I'm here to teach and be taught. Information should be flowing in more than it is flowing out, and I feel that it is, as of late. Like I said, I'd rather you berate me or rip me a new one than you to hold your tongue and allow me to wallow in ignorance. (I didn't say it like that, the first time, but that's what I meant.)

And, I accept that guns make some people more violent, but can it not be reasoned that it causes some to also be more cautious or reserved around a gun? Surely it does. Surely they balance each other out with everyone else falling in between or in a third or forth category.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I still think we are much further long with the human mind than we are with astro and quantum physics.

fair enough, I disagree though

Originally posted by dadudemon
So how can we cross that bridge if we are bound by ethics.

So where is this bridge study I was referring to earlier? Bridge the gap, for me, between violent perceptions and thoughts, and actual violent actions, in context with a gun.

I don't think we can as no study exists.

As you said, "unethical".

bridge which gap? the gap between research and applied science?

like, you know the study of medicine is a statistical analysis, not a direct observation of real world, specific instance, treatment.

this is getting really close to a creationist demanding the single study that "proves" evolution.

I don't feel there is any greater gap here than in any behavioural research paradigm.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes. DEFINITELY list all of the problems.

I wont go over all, but least of which, you aren't testing anything. There is no IV, hardly a DV, no manipulations, it isn't clear if it is within or between subjects, there is no control... I couldn't imagine what your null hypothesis would be...

Originally posted by dadudemon
How else would you test for differences in actual violent behavior when a gun is involved, versus other items?

You can't test actual violence. You can observe things which sociology, anthropology and criminology link to violent actions within society, and attempt to see if those things can be elicited in an experimental setting.

Like, its not just that you are expecting something that is unethical to research, you seem to be expecting something that is beyond the scope of science itself.

Experimental results, in all scientific fields, only apply to closed systems. Physics only works so well in reality, because we understand all of the variables, and we can simulate closed systems in a lab that are very close to real world situations.

There are no such abilities to create a closed system of the human environment. This isn't an ethical concern, but a sheer limitation based on the scope of what is being studied. Much like how astrophysicists cannot recreate a new universe, psychologists cannot recreate human civilization within the lab.

This also goes a step further, in that, it appears that what you expect a study to be able to do is well beyond what studies are designed to do. All of the studies I have talked about are whether the presence of a gun increases certain measures of aggression or violence. It says nothing, I repeat, nothing, about what a specific individual will do in any real world setting, nor is it supposed to be able to do such, so yes, guns could have many effects on people given the billions of variables that are involved with any real world human interaction. To expect experimental predictions that would tell how a specific person is expected to act in a specific situation is setting the goalposts deliberately at a point that science can't reach. Its like saying "scientifically disprove god", you are asking for something that science is not designed to do.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Design a superior experiment and guess the outcome.

Ha: The mere presence of guns causes more violent behaviour in individuals

Ho1: There is no difference between the ability of guns and other weapons or objects to elicit violent behaviour

Ho2: There is no rise in violent behaviour with exposure to guns

I'd say some form of blocked, repeated-measures design, so that you can measure within-subject rather than between. 4 conditions: control, gun, weapon, object. Very strict counterbalancing, so the study would need a significant amount of people.

you would then need to pick something that you think is a valid representation of real world violence that isn't actually real world violence. Here is the amazing kicker (and why I'm having trouble not being entirely glib): Even if you did the study in the middle of a crowded place and were getting the person to be violent against complete bystanders, it is STILL a laboratory measure of aggression. The person knows they are being tested, and the situation is not a real life situation. There is just a purely methodological issue IF you are of the mindset that only real world violence can represent real world violence, and that is a standard that a) you don't apply to everything else, b) no real scientist expects and c) is impossible anyways.

so, pretend we overcome that hurdle, you would need to run people through each condition and see if there are significant differences in violent actions, compare the results of each individual to their own results in the other conditions, try to find patterns.

Since these studies have been done for decades, have stood up to huge scrutiny and have been consistently replicated in every way with the exception of "real world violence", I would say the answer is pretty easy.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't think so. I think it is more of a study of association rather than their own actual actions.

there is microevolution, but not macroevolution

Originally posted by dadudemon
AHA!

But I disagree on ego not being very big.


It's huge when your friend is right there watching with several other people. Failure in front of them is devastating to the ego.

Translate that to an online FPS like Halo 3. You're with your squad mates and you get pwned and t-bagged, over and over. Your ego has been f***ed in the face....right in the bullet wound, to be exact...and then teabagged.

you have the chain of causality mixed up. Social cognitions do not precede biological arousal

Originally posted by dadudemon
But that's the point of the experiment. To test what people would ACTUALLY do instead of guessing what their thoughts would translate to when that guessing could be a fallacy.

no offense, but for someone who doesn't understand experimental psychology, thats a fairly ignorant statement

guessing?

should we go over the reactions of people to non-confirming evidence under cognitive dissonance? or is that also just a guess?

Originally posted by dadudemon
This isn't one of those films. It is much lower budget and focuses more on psychology and manipulation than it does on effects and yelling.

This film is about an actual experimentation that was undertaken by the U.S. but was later canceled due to obvious ethical concerns. It really was based on experimental psychology. Does it have you interested, now?

the movie, Das Experiment, made about the stanford prison experiments, A MOVIE ABOUT A PSYCHOLOGY EXPERIMENT, was wrong. movies will sacrifice scientific accuracy for entertainment.

Further, you are questioning research science because of a movie done by the same guy who did the Texas chainsaw massacre prequel?

look man, you don't have to agree, but it seems like you are really grasping at straws to use actors in a fictional movie to attempt to discredit research that is over 20 years old, which has been constantly replicated.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, I accept that guns make some people more violent, but can it not be reasoned that it causes some to also be more cautious or reserved around a gun? Surely it does. Surely they balance each other out with everyone else falling in between or in a third or forth category.

yes, there are also people who go out and murder others so that they can masturbate with the corpse.

Psychology is not trying to explain why any one person does or does not do something in a specific situation. In fact, no science is of that scope, and to expect it, in this case, seems to show that you really want the opposite to be true so that you can have a political belief. This action, done by you, has also been shown in research, whereby people do not even engage in rational analysis of things they don't believe, but move as quickly as possible to find any reason to dismiss the entirety of it, much like you have done by calling experimental psychology "guessing", and challenging experimental results with a movie.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
In 1990 larceny formed 65.1 percent of the total crimes with negligent homicide or injury as 26.2 percent of crimes. Although Japan has far fewer people than the U.S., comparisons are still possible. Japan has aground 1.3 robberies per 100,000 people. By comparison, the U.S. has 233 per 100,000 people (England has 65.8 and West Germany 48.6).

The Japanese murder rate is about 1.1 per 100,000 people; West German has a rate of 3.9, Britain a rate of 9.1, and the U.S. 8.7 per 100,000 people.


Obviously a bit out of date by now. Probably cause we and Japan have done enough for a while.

reread what I've posted, essentially everything you have asked is covered in the past few pages.

Long story short, the "smoking gun" evidence you want is impossible to get. I've repeated this many times, and explained how it is beyond the scope of any research science to provide. The reason I feel you are being dismissive, is, well, now you are trying to use my own posts as evidence against my points.

My tune has not changed, and my skepticism was to prevent people from going "oh, guns will make you violent if you are around them", not to cast doubt on the studies. I wouldn't be a research psychologist, nor would I have brought the studies up, if I felt the way you seem to be implying I do.

Originally posted by inimalist
reread what I've posted, essentially everything you have asked is covered in the past few pages.

Long story short, the "smoking gun" evidence you want is impossible to get. I've repeated this many times, and explained how it is beyond the scope of any research science to provide. The reason I feel you are being dismissive, is, well, now you are trying to use my own posts as evidence against my points.

My tune has not changed, and my skepticism was to prevent people from going "oh, guns will make you violent if you are around them", not to cast doubt on the studies. I wouldn't be a research psychologist, nor would I have brought the studies up, if I felt the way you seem to be implying I do.

So, in your opinion, what does that test do for us other than prove how they react in that specific test? (Keep in mind that your opinion is professional and I will take it as such and leave it at that. I promise.)


And, yes, I've read all of your posts, thoroughly. Why is it absurd to want a study presented that shows arrousal and violent thoughts lead to real world violence? (I know this already: because it wouldn't be ethical.)

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, in your opinion, what does that test do for us other than prove how they react in that specific test? (Keep in mind that your opinion is professional and I will take it as such and leave it at that. I promise.)

little, if anything

Taken with the body of evidence surrounding aggression research, it shows that people behave in ways that researchers define as aggressive in controlled circumstances.

don't just take my opinion, like, I'm not looking to just preach, but, you keep asking the exact same question and I keep telling you that is beyond the scope of science.

Evolution doesn't prove how life started

Originally posted by dadudemon
And, yes, I've read all of your posts, thoroughly. Why is it absurd to want a study presented that shows arrousal and violent thoughts lead to real world violence? (I know this already: because it wouldn't be ethical.)

no dude, its not just the ethics. The ethics are the main issue.

so, when I put out Ha, Ho1, and Ho2, those were the alternative hypothesis and the null hypothesis. In science, one designs experiments based on an idea. So, in this, it would be, guns can make people more violent. That becomes Ha, the alternative hypothesis. Now, you can't just run a study to try and prove that. What you have to do is ask, what would I expect if that weren't true. So, if guns don't elicit violence, what would we expect? thus both null hypotheses.

To see if there is evidence against the nulls, we design Independent variables that we presume will affect a dependent variable. The independent variable is what is manipulated by the experimenter between experimental conditions, and the dependent variable is the measured and compared under these conditions. In this, the independent variable (IV) would be the exposure to a weapon, specifically a gun, whereas the dependent variable (DV) would be real world violence.

Importantly, for something to be an experiment, it MUST have an IV. If there is no IV, you cannot even approach causality. Observational research, therefore, is only correlational, and that is at best.

Now, because there has to be an experimental manipulation, even if you don't control for anything else (ie: make it as "real world" as possible ) it will never be a "real world" situation. you are always, by definition, imposing an artificial stimulus to try and elicit a response, so it is, literally, impossible for there to be that "bridge", even if it were ethical do to so.

The reason your experiments were essentially not experiments is, basically, they had no experimental design. You just wanted to watch what people did, which is observational, and, well, aside from divination, the worst way to try and get information about the world around us.

Originally posted by inimalist
little, if anything

Taken with the body of evidence surrounding aggression research, it shows that people behave in ways that researchers define as aggressive in controlled circumstances.

don't just take my opinion, like, I'm not looking to just preach, but, you keep asking the exact same question and I keep telling you that is beyond the scope of science.

Evolution doesn't prove how life started


Damn it. So what use is the study? And...damn it.


I don't know what to say.

Edit - Wait. I know how to check for responses. Have people report their thoughts when someone robs them with a knife, with a gun, with a piece of paper. A review of those people shortly after the incidents could ...maybe produce closer to what we're looking for? We could also compare actual injury to what they thought would happen, and we could also measure injury that occurs from the bad guy to the victims with each item. (paper ain't gonna do jack, though.)


That's a rather hasty idea...but it may have substance.


Originally posted by inimalist
no dude, its not just the ethics. The ethics are the main issue.

so, when I put out Ha, Ho1, and Ho2, those were the alternative hypothesis and the null hypothesis. In science, one designs experiments based on an idea. So, in this, it would be, guns can make people more violent. That becomes Ha, the alternative hypothesis. Now, you can't just run a study to try and prove that. What you have to do is ask, what would I expect if that weren't true. So, if guns don't elicit violence, what would we expect? thus both null hypotheses.

Originally posted by inimalist
To see if there is evidence against the nulls, we design Independent variables that we presume will affect a dependent variable. The independent variable is what is manipulated by the experimenter between experimental conditions, and the dependent variable is the measured and compared under these conditions. In this, the independent variable (IV) would be the exposure to a weapon, specifically a gun, whereas the dependent variable (DV) would be real world violence.

That's almost exactly what I said (not verbatim, but the general idea).

Originally posted by inimalist
Importantly, for something to be an experiment, it MUST have an IV. If there is no IV, you cannot even approach causality. Observational research, therefore, is only correlational, and that is at best.

I agree.

Originally posted by inimalist
Now, because there has to be an experimental manipulation, even if you don't control for anything else (ie: make it as "real world" as possible ) it will never be a "real world" situation. you are always, by definition, imposing an artificial stimulus to try and elicit a response, so it is, literally, impossible for there to be that "bridge", even if it were ethical do to so.

However, some studies are better than others. Some studies are setup and executed better, making them more awesomer(that word is scientific, damnit) than other tests.

Originally posted by inimalist
The reason your experiments were essentially not experiments is, basically, they had no experimental design. You just wanted to watch what people did, which is observational, and, well, aside from divination, the worst way to try and get information about the world around us.

Really? We couldn't find things that I suggested we could find?

But I do agree that it would fall prey to the very same thing I brought up: how would it translate to the real world?




Closer to on topic, would not an armed police officer elicit compliance for a significant portion of people, as compared to an unarmed officer?





The perception of the gun from the suspect would make them more violent or would it make them think about the violence that could occur?


How does that study on gun perception translate to the topic?

Of course, there's the situation to which the office is called to.


There's the location.

There's the time.

There's other people involved. (If there's an angry mob chanting to the person being arrested: "Fight back. Take is gun .Shoot him. etc", then the suspect is probably more likely to do just that, fight back.)

The age of the suspect and officer.

How the office handles the situation.

The smell of both the officer and the suspect. (Yes, this does play a factor in it.)

The size of the suspect and the size of the officer.

The weather conditions. (If the wind is blowing really hard, if it's raining, if there is severe weather at the time, hot or cold, etc. People are likely to be more agitated in those conditions.)

The family and friend state of the suspect and the officer. (If the officer just got a divorce notice, out of the blue, if the suspect's mother just died, etc. You could think of a million of these types of things.)

The personalities of the officer and suspect, when take in tandem with the situation as presented above.

The perceived financial situation of the suspect and of the suspect to the officer, but less so on the latter.







Etc.





Kind of sucks trying to figure out everything...and it's retardedly impossible.








Maybe we could get back to reality and see if we can find effectiveness of officers in violent situations.


Is there data on the safety of cops who are unarmed, reporting to events that are known to be violent in anyway?

If we could find bodies of evidence for both armed and unarmed we could compare deaths for cops on both sides, and violence on cops, per capita. If we do that, we could at least compare armed cops against unarmed cops..at least superficially.

However, that even fails to perfect comparison as not all violent crime numbers are equal. Since the UK has a lot more violent crime than say, the US, we could assume that UK police have to report to more violent crimes. On top of that, not all violent crimes being reported to will escalate because it is a lad mugging an old lady, or some shit.




I dunno.



How the **** can you compare unarmed police to armed police?

/sigh

Originally posted by inimalist
/sigh

I've dropped the other convo.



Let's stay on topic.


Compare armed police effectiveness to unarmed effectiveness. Can you do so. Do you have data. Etc.

I dont'. I couldn't find any on the intertubes.

in 99.999999999% of the cases, it doesn't really matter. The vast majority of people are going to obey the uniform, regardless of whether they are armed or not. Most criminals will not openly attack an officer, especially shoot to kill, and against those who would, it is arguable if a gun would protect them (certainly gives them a better chance of survival, but I can't imagine a criminal not shooting at a cop simply because they have a gun). The majority of things police deal with are not situations where they need to use a weapon. Further, beat cops rarely would be called to major armed situations, as special strike teams are much better suited.

So, maybe, in a really small percentage of cases, the gun could be the tipping point for a person disobeying a police officer and killing them, but I would argue that having armed cops has caused more deaths from over-reactions that it has saved in these types of situations.

I live in Canada. We don't have a police state like you do, so cops' guns don't really bother me. I'm more in favor of banning the use of tazers than of guns, just because thats the culture up here. Cops rarely pull their guns, though, as lil mentioned earlier in the thread, it does happen.

I think one of the problems with discussions of guns within any topic is that the US is not a good example as, for whatever reason, it behaves vehemently different than many other first world countries. Perhaps the best approach is to compare different western European countries where laws are different (i.e. Switzerland little gun control, Germany armed police and tight gun control, UK unarmed police total gun ban, etc.).



As for testing whether being armed changes someone's behaviour, wouldn't it perhaps be possible in a totally controlled environment, of course I have little knowledge of psychological research, but as far as I understand there are studies that do similar things, though I don't know whether they are valid. I saw something on a BBC documentary once where they tested whether temperature influences a person's behaviour. They gave the applicants either a cold drink or a warm to hold and then asked (after a while) a question, which apparently was answered differently depending on what the person had in their hand.

Of course I also know that a vast amount of published studies, especially in medicine, are total bullshit (makes sense to if you are basically forced to publish to advance in your studies), but I'd be interested to know what inimalist thinks of a study like that and whether something similar with guns would not be possible?

Originally posted by Bardock42
As for testing whether being armed changes someone's behaviour, wouldn't it perhaps be possible in a totally controlled environment, of course I have little knowledge of psychological research, but as far as I understand there are studies that do similar things, though I don't know whether they are valid. I saw something on a BBC documentary once where they tested whether temperature influences a person's behaviour. They gave the applicants either a cold drink or a warm to hold and then asked (after a while) a question, which apparently was answered differently depending on what the person had in their hand.

Of course I also know that a vast amount of published studies, especially in medicine, are total bullshit (makes sense to if you are basically forced to publish to advance in your studies), but I'd be interested to know what inimalist thinks of a study like that and whether something similar with guns would not be possible?

they exist and I think they are entirely valid

there are limitations to what conclusions can be drawn from them, but ya, I am of the opinion that guns increase aggressive actions and aggressive cognitions.

The issue over the past few pages has been whether or not lab measures of aggression translate into real world violence, and more about how to understand psych research than about saying it isn't good research.