|
Does anyone have any good resources on Affirmative Action? I was talking to a kid in one of my courses who turned out to actually be pretty bright, and in favor of a lot of things that surprised me for living in rural michigan (increased spending and taxes, universal healthcare, etc.), but he was pretty obsessed with the idea of a meritocracy. What seemed weird is that he didn't want to drat those who didn't get the job, in fact he wanted to expand unemployment benefits, increase the minimum wage, and other things that would make life for people who were working jobs they didn't want to otherwise, but the idea that someone who wasn't "the best" getting a position rubbed him the wrong way. I delved a bit and it seemed to originate from a time he was talking to an Army recruiter who said something along the lines of "you're a fantastic candidate, but you're a white man, so I can't help you." This reeked of poo poo to me, but I also wouldn't be surprised if it was truthful and the recruit was intentionally being a shithead, especially since the kid in question was so honest and candid about everything else we discussed. I know the gist of it, such as that "the best" wasn't always getting hired (people not wanting to hire qualified women/minorities either because of deliberate or subconscious bigotry) and that having a variety of workers is inherently valuable to an organization/community in a lot of ways, but if there's any strong readings or statistics that could help I'd appreciate it.
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 18:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
SSJ2 Goku Wilders posted:Take it with a giant grain of salt. What's wrong with the video? Also, there's a good lecture on taxes up on the Harvard youtube channel right now: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjuKvgQv51Y
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 19:28
|
|
|
Countblanc posted:Does anyone have any good resources on Affirmative Action? I was talking to a kid in one of my courses who turned out to actually be pretty bright, and in favor of a lot of things that surprised me for living in rural michigan (increased spending and taxes, universal healthcare, etc.), but he was pretty obsessed with the idea of a meritocracy. What seemed weird is that he didn't want to drat those who didn't get the job, in fact he wanted to expand unemployment benefits, increase the minimum wage, and other things that would make life for people who were working jobs they didn't want to otherwise, but the idea that someone who wasn't "the best" getting a position rubbed him the wrong way. http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/emilygreg_0.pdf Are Emily and Greg More Employable than Lakisha and Jamal?: A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination is always a good study to show why things like Affirmative Action are needed. The abstract: quote:We study race in the labor market by sending fictitious resumes to help-wanted ads in Boston and Chicago newspapers. To manipulate perceived race, resumes are randomly assigned African American or White sounding names. White names receive 50 percent more callbacks for interviews. Callbacks are also more responsive to resume quality for White names than for African American ones. The racial gap is uniform across occupation, industry, and employer size. We also find little evidence that employers are inferring social class from the names. Differential treatment by race still appears to still be prominent in the U.S. labor market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2012 23:16
|
|
|
So I'm trying to talk to my bf about the Affordable Care Act (which he doesn't seem to totally oppose, but, ya know, he reads the New York Post, so). He claimed two things that I'd like more information about. The first: he told me that his employer sent around an email basically saying "Because of Obamacare, we (and/or the insurance company, I'm not clear on this) are raising your insurance premiums immediately." And his rates went up. Has anyone heard of this happening to anyone else? Is this his insurer's doing, or his employer's, or what? (He works for a high-end retailer.) The second: he said he'd heard that, buried in the bill, there was an unrelated tax thing saying that the lower limit for reporting income to the IRS had been lowered from around $2K to $600. That seems oddly specific but I really couldn't find anything about this online. Could he be misinterpreting something in the bill? Or, is this a conservative talking point somewhere? (Or, ya know, is it true?)
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:06
|
|
|
My insurance went up directly because of Obamacare. My lifetime cap was $1,000,000 but Obamacare prohibits that. As a direct result my employer had to increase the total amount of money socked away to be able to handle this increased liability. Total increase in price: $5 a paycheck.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:10
|
|
|
showbiz_liz posted:The first: he told me that his employer sent around an email basically saying "Because of Obamacare, we (and/or the insurance company, I'm not clear on this) are raising your insurance premiums immediately." And his rates went up. Has anyone heard of this happening to anyone else? Is this his insurer's doing, or his employer's, or what? (He works for a high-end retailer.) A bunch of insurance companies have used "Obamacare" as justification for rate increases, but they're also making record profits since it passed, so it doesn't really hold water. edit: <==== What the hell?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 02:21
|
|
|
Dude how do you attract the most insane passively aggressive titles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 18:00
|
|
|
How much blame - if any - do the auto workers unions deserve for the failure of the US auto industry, and how much can be laid at the management's feet? I'm pretty sure that my dad is wrong about how it's all the unions' fault, but I need evidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 20:40
|
|
|
Danger posted:Dude how do you attract the most insane passively aggressive titles. Pretty sure I win that contest, actually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2012 22:57
|
|
|
I'm reading this book called The Ascent of Money, and I'm a bit confused on one issue about bonds. The author says that when people lose faith in a country's ability to pay a bond, that they "lose value". Now, a bond costs the price of a bond right? If I have a $100 bond, it's worth $100 now and when I turn it in when it matures. Is he talking about a secondary market for bonds? Like if I have a 10 year bond for $100 and the country is going to poo poo, someone might only offer me $60 for it because they're taking risk of it not maturing and getting repaid? Also I didn't quite understand his explanation of "market interest", is it again related to a secondary bond market?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 8, 2012 02:33
|
|
|
Here are some ramblings based on a first impression: That is a really interesting paper. I'm all for bringing power, institutions and production to the forefront of economic theory. Embarrassingly, I haven't really thought about the absence of a 'theory of the state' in economics, though now I see it, it's glaringly obvious. Like the firm, the state is generally just a black box that inputs (taxes) go into and outputs (regulations, services) come out of. That's, of course, except for public choice theory, otherwise known as 'why pesky democracy gets in the way of efficiency.' I wasn't aware of this school (as if heterodox economics needs yet another school, it's like the Life of Brian). I'm not sure why they named themselves something new. They remind of the well established institutional school, which emphasises using different theories and approaches depending on the area of study. Superficially, it also irritates me when self-declared re-inventors of economics (or anything) overuse buzzwords like 'dynamic' 'complex' and 'rich.' But maybe that's just me. IMO the first step for any 'state-heavy' school like that is exploding the phony state-market dichotomy and establishing the existence of power relations. This protects them from stupid, but rhetorically effective, accusations of being evil statists etc.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 02:44
|
|
|
Woozy posted:Pretty sure I win that contest, actually. How long could the guy who bought that survive in D&D without probation? I really want to know.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 11:33
|
|
|
Loving Life Partner posted:I'm reading this book called The Ascent of Money, and I'm a bit confused on one issue about bonds. If the market is accurately pricing the risk (pfft...hahahah), then the value of the bond has gone down, because it contains not just the face value but the increased likelihood of loss. Just because you don't sell it doesn't mean you don't face the same risk as someone buying at 60.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2012 16:00
|
|
|
Does anybody have any information about the prevalence of NSA or other government domestic surveillance, and about whether it has actually stopped any domestic terror attacks? I mean, obviously not, but does actual hard data for this exist?
icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 19:56 on Dec 11, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 19:52
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Does anybody have any information about the prevalence of NSA or other government domestic surveillance, and about whether the war on terror has actually stopped any domestic terror attacks? Does actual data for this even exist? The FBI has a report for 2002-2005 at least, with further info on the report going back to 1980: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005/terror02_05 Some examples of Terrorist Preventions according to the FBI: February 13, 2003 Planned Attacks on Abortion Clinics and Minority Targets Amwell Township, Pennsylvania. (Prevention of one act of Domestic Terrorism) On February 13, 2003, law enforcement officials arrested David Wayne Hull, a long-time member and self-professed leader of the White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Hull had been exploding pipe bombs on his property in Amwell Township, Pennsylvania, had built and detonated improvised explosive devices (IEDs) during KKK events, and was recorded instructing individuals on how to place IEDs to cause maximum damage. Hull had also made threats against minorities and abortion clinics. Hull was indicted in March 2003 for firearms charges, witness tampering, and instructing persons on procedures for creating destructive devices. A jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania convicted Hull on seven counts of the ten-count indictment. On February 25, 2005, Hull was sentenced to 12 years in prison, followed by three years of probation. April 16, 2004 Planned Attacks against Minorities Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (Prevention of one act of Domestic Terrorism) As noted in 2004 Terrorist Incidents, the FBI arrested Sean Michael Gillespie on April 16, 2004, for having firebombed the Temple B’nai Israel in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The attack against the synagogue in Oklahoma City was likely the first of a series of unspecified attacks Gillespie intended to commit. Following Gillespie’s arrest, a search of his residence revealed a videotape containing surveillance of a Las Vegas synagogue and a statement by Gillespie that he was on a “mission for the white race,” which was to involve a cross-country spree of unspecified terrorist acts. Concern for future attacks was also supported by Gillespie’s admission following his arrest to having previously committed random acts of vandalism and violence against minorities. And so on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
Great, thanks. Also, is there anything on 'foreign' domestic attacks specifically, the ones that the Patriot act and such were actually aimed at?
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2012 20:13
|
|
|
I just need some basic information on why men's rights activists are on the whole wrong. I just got sucked into an debate with a friend who is a hardcore "men lose every divorce case ever" type jackass and I have no real sources to back me up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:21
|
|
|
TheModernAmerican posted:I just need some basic information on why men's rights activists are on the whole wrong. I just got sucked into an debate with a friend who is a hardcore "men lose every divorce case ever" type jackass and I have no real sources to back me up. They're on the whole wrong because they assert that men are an oppressed demographic. That's just silly. You need to list specific points, it's too broad. I'll try and dig up a source but men actually win more often when they contest custody. Most men don't because (presumably) they don't want to take care of the kids and thus don't try and get custody. edit: Blog post detailing this: http://www.villainouscompany.com/vcblog/archives/2012/04/child_supportcu.html Zeitgueist fucked around with this message at 02:02 on Dec 12, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 00:46
|
|
|
Honestly that's good enough, it's not some big serious thing. Thanks a bunch!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2012 03:38
|
|
|
Any good resources on how NYPD Stop and Frisk is both a failure and completely bullshit policy to begin with?
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
Tomahawk posted:Any good resources on how NYPD Stop and Frisk is both a failure and completely bullshit policy to begin with? It's not really a failure, it's just not as effective as they would like it to be since their end run around the 4th amendment can't be digital anymore.
|
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:50
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:They're on the whole wrong because they assert that men are an oppressed demographic. That's just silly. Unfortunately, the blog's links are down, so I can't check their sources to see if that question is answered. edit: There's a cached version, which the forums software keeps messing with the link to when I try to post it. Doesn't clarify that question, though it does turn out that the study is from way back in 1990. http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IpMev73bDV8J:www.amptoons.com/blog/files/Massachusetts_Gender_Bias_Study.htm Strudel Man fucked around with this message at 21:02 on Dec 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Dec 14, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
I need some help on unions, specifically why right-to-work laws are bad, why we still need unions, and why union abuses are fairly overblown. I found a decent article here and a journal article summary here but its hard to find articles that have just hard facts and aren't heavily politicized, which isn't going to gain me any traction. There should probably be a section in the OP dedicated to unions considering how important and politically charged the subject is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 05:03
|
|
|
Strudel Man posted:The thing I wonder about with this is that it only specifies that these are cases where fathers seek custody, which leads me to believe that it includes incidents in which the mother doesn't seek custody at all, as well as those in which custody is genuinely contested. In order to evaluate bias, it seems like we would want to focus rather narrowly on the latter circumstance. From other reading I've done on the subject, most custody is decided ahead of time by mutual agreement of the couple, and they often decide to have the women keep the kids. It sounds as if MRA's are whining about a situation that, on the the whole, is something many men want. That fits with the standard practice of MRA's complaining about things that patriarchy has created.
|
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 11:24
|
|
|
1stGear posted:I need some help on unions, specifically why right-to-work laws are bad, why we still need unions, and why union abuses are fairly overblown. I found a decent article here and a journal article summary here but its hard to find articles that have just hard facts and aren't heavily politicized, which isn't going to gain me any traction. It does deserve a thorough treatment. I am not the best one to provide it, but here are a few details — maybe a bit basic, but the discussions I've been having out and about lately suggest that it may still be of some use. RTW laws chip away at union participation. It goes roughly like this: Anyone can work for a company with a unionized labor force without joining said union, but "union security agreements" can set the condition that even if they don't join, they're still required to pay (some) union dues. Generally, this means they're going to join, since if they're going to pay then they may as well get to exercise the degree of participatory control to which their fees entitle them. RTW legislation invalidates such security agreements, and thus non-member workers are not required to chip in. This removes a key incentive to participate, encourages "free riding," and divides workers, all of which contribute to a gradual erosion of union strength. Unions are vital because collective action is the most effective way labor can fight to improve its lot. In other words, they are key units in the class struggle. Of course, the phrase "class struggle" tends to turn people off, so it may be more helpful to the uninitiated to say "the relative bargaining positions of labor and capital." That's the gist of it: they improve labor's bargaining position. As long as you have dozens/hundreds/thousands of unaffiliated workers confronting a singular owning entity, the former are at a distinct disadvantage, because their relation to their peers takes on a competitive form. While said competition may not always be obvious, it manifests clearly whenever terms of employment are in consideration. E.g., nobody wants to be the only one protesting a pay cut; you'd effectively be positioning yourself on the chopping block. Once a union forms, it can be thought of as a company-within-a-company, run on more democratic principles. Suddenly the owner is confronted by another unitary legal entity, capable of expressing its own interests as the workforce could not before. We need unions now for the same reason we needed them in any past generation: to improve the general living standards of the public. The work they do at the level of the firm has macroeconomic consequences, and growing union influence can raise the floor on the economy even for non-union shops. Inversely, as go unions, so too that floor. And we've seen this in action; the decline of unions has correlated to rising inequality, worsening wages, fewer benefits, and so on. And while our productive capacity has risen significantly since, say, the 50's and 60's — after all, even setting aside subsequent advances in fabrication, automation, chemistry, et al, industry and commerce had neither cellphones nor an internet at that point — in many critical ways living standards have fallen: fewer and fewer households are able to function with a single breadwinner, fewer people can afford basic necessities like healthcare, and so on. Though RTW is often supported under the pretense of "improving workers' freedom," there's a curious contradiction in free-market support for RTW: it actually represents a distinct government intervention, since owner and union had entered voluntarily into their security agreement. People who feel strongly about freedom of association and contract should find this problematic. People who oppose government intervention while supporting RTW are just making it clear that they only dislike statism when it expresses the interests of the other class. Some assorted links (I'm sure others will find better stuff): Media Matters recently posted a "myths and facts" sheet that appears to build upon a similar piece from February. It doesn't really adhere to your "not heavily politicized" requirement, but the beauty of research posts like this is that you can always just link to particular articles it references instead. (Though, given the explicitly political and distributional nature of the issue, it's not clear to me that politicization should or even can be fully avoided.) Ezra Klein comments on the framing of 'right to work'; links to a post by Brad Plumer on its effects. "[A]doption of the phrase “right to work” represents a linguistic victory for management..." Feel-good history: a fabulous retelling of the Flint Sit-down Strike by Oracle, from back in February. For those without archives, here's a hosted version. Aeolius fucked around with this message at 10:38 on Jan 22, 2013 |
|
#
?
Dec 15, 2012 13:51
|
|
|
If they bring up the argument that unions kill manufacturing with high wages, one particularly handy fact to use is that Germany is roughly 80% unionized, has one of the highest wages in the EU, and is only beaten in exports by China (beating the US, to belabor the point... no pun intended). If they try to say that then they have to explain Germany.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Great, thanks. Also, is there anything on 'foreign' domestic attacks specifically, the ones that the Patriot act and such were actually aimed at? That list of actual actions is fascinating to go through. In terms of incidents involving the intent to injure or kill people, between 2001 and 2005 there were effectively four: 9/11, the 2001 anthrax letters, a 2002 shooting spree by an Islamist at LAX, and the 2003 Chiron bombings. The remainder are all acts of sabotage (arson, tree spiking, vandalism, etc). One of those was a 21-year-old neo-Nazi who threw a molotov at a synagogue in Oklahoma (doing minimal damage). With that one exception, all of the other (several dozen ) incidents were committed by the Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front. Post-2005 things got a lot more violent, though: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1949329,00.html There's a Global Terrorism Database at the Universty of Maryland. That search I linked has everything in the US from 2000-2011. As far as I can tell, the only case of an actual foreign national committing a terrorist act since 9/11 was the underpants bomber. Terrorism in the USA (even Islamist terrorism) is largely a domestic affair. That's not to say that there weren't a whole bunch of foiled plots, but I haven't found where to get that data yet.
|
|
#
?
Dec 16, 2012 06:07
|
|
|
The Newtown shooting has reignited the debate about gun control in the United States, with gun control advocates arguing for less guns and gun rights activists arguing that the country would be safer with MORE guns. One tangent of this argument is that "gun free zones" only mark places as easy targets for shooters, in much the same way that security devices only show which homes have something worth stealing. I want to argue against this idea because it sounds stupid to me, but I haven't particularly found any good arguments why this is dumb except that I think it sounds dumb. I'd like something stronger, or at the very least, I'd like to know if I'm wrong. Are "gun-free zones" actually just deathtraps?
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 22:56
|
|
|
I've never seen one and imagine that a large, huge, swath of space in this country is "gun free".
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:Are "gun-free zones" actually just deathtraps? The fact that the question is in and of itself an oxymoron should help you figure it out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:10
|
|
|
Would Adam Lanza have been deterred if there wasn't a tiny "Gun free zone" sign on the school? The answer is no. He went in, according to current reports, gun blazing; he would have at the very least dropped anyone outside who was armed before they knew what was going on. With a minimum of body armor he would have withstood whatever the teachers were packing (ignoring the risks of arming people around toddlers), and by the time the principal had unlocked her shotgun she would have been dead. There was likely nothing that could have stopped it once it began, just like Aurora (though that had the extra niggles of the fire door being open, and inadequate security for a large crowd). All that could have been done is prevent it in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:11
|
|
|
Zuhzuhzombie!! posted:I've never seen one and imagine that a large, huge, swath of space in this country is "gun free". Here I just made this for the gun thread, not exactly "gun free" but: Hey friends here's a nice ol map of where the gun owners live and don't live!  KEY TO COLORS: Green = States from 6.7% to 25.5% gun ownership (Hawaii to Delaware) Light blue = States from 30% to 39.8% gun ownership (New Hampshire to Oregon) Yellow = States from 40.3% to 42% gun ownership (Georgia to Vermont) Orange = States from 42.1% to 47.7% gun ownership (Kansas to Kentucky) Red = States from 50.7% to 59.7% gun ownership (North Dakota to Wyoming) Just incidentally: GREEN has 116,261,974 people. LIGHT BLUE has 87,264,836 people. YELLOW has 32,470,090 people. ORANGE has 44,429,705 people. RED has 17,833,570 people. And here's one with states scaled for population with the same color scheme (sorry it isn't neat!)  Percentages are from http://usliberals.about.com/od/Election2012Factors/a/Gun-Owners-As-Percentage-Of-Each-States-Population.htm which cites http://www.usacarry.com/ as a source on this. Seems about as legit as anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:13
|
|
|
Haha goddamn, 25% ownership as the upper limit of the 'low ownership' category 
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:17
|
|
|
Ambrose Burnside posted:Haha goddamn, 25% ownership as the upper limit of the 'low ownership' category LOTS of people own a hunting gun of some kind. My father has 2 that belonged to his father and neither has been fired in 35 years. I imagine lots of people are in a similar boat, owning a gun that they do not use.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:20
|
|
|
WoodrowSkillson posted:LOTS of people own a hunting gun of some kind. My father has 2 that belonged to his father and neither has been fired in 35 years. I imagine lots of people are in a similar boat, owning a gun that they do not use. I'm not am American, 25% gun ownership for any reason whatsoever being the low range kind of blows my mind, even though everybody knows America Has All The Guns
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:23
|
|
|
It would be more useful to see a map of handgun ownership. Also to see it broken down by county, so Florida and California and Illinois would more reflect the actual populations.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:25
|
|
|
Golbez posted:It would be more useful to see a map of handgun ownership. Also to see it broken down by county, so Florida and California and Illinois would more reflect the actual populations. Absolutely no one has data up for county-by-county so I'm afraid I can't do that. There also is only fragmentary at best data for handguns. Florida's absolutely filled with people from other states who moved in recent times, and California and Illinois have had fairly long standing restrictions on gun ownership so it reflects the populations fairly well. Here's what I mean with Florida: Florida Population: 1950 2,771,305 46.1% 1960 4,951,560 78.7% 1970 6,789,443 37.1% 1980 9,746,324 43.6% 1990 12,937,926 32.7% 2000 15,982,378 23.5% 2010 18,801,310 17.6% National Population: 1950 151,325,798 14.5% 1960 179,323,175 18.5% 1970 203,211,926 13.3% 1980 226,545,805 11.5% 1990 248,709,873 9.8% 2000 281,421,906 13.2% 2010 308,745,538 9.7%
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2012 23:37
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:The Newtown shooting has reignited the debate about gun control in the United States, with gun control advocates arguing for less guns and gun rights activists arguing that the country would be safer with MORE guns. One tangent of this argument is that "gun free zones" only mark places as easy targets for shooters, in much the same way that security devices only show which homes have something worth stealing. I want to argue against this idea because it sounds stupid to me, but I haven't particularly found any good arguments why this is dumb except that I think it sounds dumb. I'd like something stronger, or at the very least, I'd like to know if I'm wrong. Are "gun-free zones" actually just deathtraps? We've seen gun-free zones on a city scale and aside from the fact that it doesn't stop crime (which isn't a useful observation), we can see that the government has absolutely no will to enforce a ban by aggressively taking guns off the streets, or by harshly penalizing gun crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:The Newtown shooting has reignited the debate about gun control in the United States, with gun control advocates arguing for less guns and gun rights activists arguing that the country would be safer with MORE guns. One tangent of this argument is that "gun free zones" only mark places as easy targets for shooters, in much the same way that security devices only show which homes have something worth stealing. I want to argue against this idea because it sounds stupid to me, but I haven't particularly found any good arguments why this is dumb except that I think it sounds dumb. I'd like something stronger, or at the very least, I'd like to know if I'm wrong. Are "gun-free zones" actually just deathtraps? It seems like the burden of proof should be on the person you are debating with to actually give evidence that mass shooters pay any attention to gun free zones before embarking on a killing spree. These people tend to almost always kill themselves or get shot by the police so they don't seem to be trying that hard to avoid injury and death. They also tend to be targeting a location that is significant to them like a workplace or school that they or someone they know has attended. People who commit these crimes are already indifferent to their own well-being and they typically select their targets based on the personal significance they have. Its ridiculous to think that they are selecting soft targets to attack based on where they think private citizens possess firearms. You shouldn't feel obligated to find very much evidence to prove something that doesn't even make sense and which doesn't sound at all plausible once you actually stop and think about it. If you really want to stump them just ask for a list of shooters who they think selected their targets based on the 'gun free' criteria. Then point out all the reasons that this is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 17:59 |
|
|
Helsing posted:It seems like the burden of proof should be on the person you are debating with to actually give evidence that mass shooters pay any attention to gun free zones before embarking on a killing spree. The person you are arguing with should point out that gun free zones don't actually work, not that they themselves encourage violence but rather that they don't do a drat thing to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2012 08:27
|
|
