Armed Police

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. 😆

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. 😐

😐

😐

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.