Gun control
I think that the Gun control thread got lost when the old politics thread got moved.
1 The rest of the world looks at the US policy with slack jawed astonishment.
2. “Guns don’t kill people , people do” is identical to “Nuclear weapons don’t kill people, people do”
3. Using the idea that carrying guns can prevent the government oppressing you seems to ignore the fact that the US government controls the most effective killing machine in history
not exclusively and not all blacks no. specific portions of the population not only under racial lines.
young urban poor uneducated males often of minority background (but not exclusively). some of the white guys in the shameless show qualify as well for instance (just an example).
crime rates in those sub demographics were higher than avg in the 50s but to a far lower degree than decades later.
something happened that made those groups snap completely, and it started in the late sixties, with the peak in the 80s
not exclusively and not all blacks no. specific portions of the population not only under racial lines.
young urban poor uneducated males often of minority background (but not exclusively). some of the white guys in the shameless show qualify as well for instance (just an example).
crime rates in those sub demographics were higher than avg in the 50s but to a far lower degree than decades later.
something happened that made those groups snap
Out of curiosity, where do you get this information? It's not necessarily inaccurate, but I am wondering whether you've personally ever been to any of these areas you're talking about (or the USA at all), or whether all your information is derived from reading certain sources, which may or not be unbiased.
Out of curiosity, where do you get this information? It's not necessarily inaccurate, but I am wondering whether you've personally ever been to any of these areas you're talking about (or the USA at all), or whether all your information is derived from reading certain sources, which may or not be unbiased.
I tend to read a wide variety of sources but i base my claims only on sources i can vet myself, so the origin of the claim is always irrelevant, as it becomes part of my working assumptions only after i can verify the validity. Ofc i can't control everything so if a major well reputed statistical institute is frauding everyone by inputting completly made up data, that i can't check for myself.
As to the subject of crime links to race, socioeconomic conditions, age and sex , i can read papers and i can gauge the validity of their statistical approaches so i do that.
Black economist Roland Fryer is particularly good on the subject lately, at least at debunking objectively false claims by BLM for example.
Black economist Roland Fryer is particularly good on the subject lately, at least at debunking objectively false claims by BLM for example.
I know that Roland Fryer wrote a widely discussed piece about police violence and race, but I am unaware of what he published concerning:
young urban poor uneducated males often of minority background (but not exclusively). some of the white guys in the shameless show qualify as well for instance (just an example).
crime rates in those sub demographics were higher than avg in the 50s but to a far lower degree than decades later.
something happened that made those groups snap completely, and it started in the late sixties, with the peak in the 80s
It sounds like you read a paper from him on that issue. Can you provide a link?
I ask because I am having a lot of trouble finding crime data from 1950 to present that is simultaneously stratified by age, gender, minority status, education, and urban v. rural. Candidly, I am skeptical of whether such data is available.
I know that Roland Fryer wrote a widely discussed piece about police violence and race, but I am unaware of what he published concerning:
It sounds like you read a paper from him on that issue. Can you provide a link?
He (with co authors) informed me in particular wrt crack cocaine impact on black communities
Numerous social indicators turned negative for Blacks in the 1980s and rebounded a decade later. We explore whether crack cocaine explains these patterns. Absent a direct measure, we construct a crack prevalence index using multiple proxies. Our index reproduces spatial and temporal patterns described in ethnographic accounts of the crack epidemic. It explains much of the 1980s rise in Black youth homicide and more moderate increases in adverse birth outcomes. Although our index remains high through the 1990s, crack's deleterious social impact fades. Changes over time in behavior, crack markets, and the user population may have mitigated crack's damaging impacts. (JEL K42, J15, I30
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/...
The snapshot of my post you quoted is my recollection given the many papers on the topic written by many people, not the take from a single paper by anyone (then maybe someone i don't know did publish a similar recollection of events , sure, i don't read everything)
I know that Roland Fryer wrote a widely discussed piece about police violence and race, but I am unaware of what he published concerning:
It sounds like you read a paper from him on that issue. Can you provide a link?
The book "the urban underclass" (1991, Jencks) tries to answer your question
He (with co authors) informed me in particular wrt crack cocaine impact on black communities
Numerous social indicators turned negative for Blacks in the 1980s and rebounded a decade later. We explore whether crack cocaine explains these patterns. Absent a direct measure, we construct a crack prevalence index using multiple proxies. Our index reproduces spatial and temporal patterns described in ethnographic accounts of the crack epidemic.
I can't read the full paper, but based on the abstract, I am highly skeptical that it supports your statement. In any case, you said:
Black economist Roland Fryer is particularly good on the subject lately, at least at debunking objectively false claims by BLM for example.
This paper is more than ten years old and obviously was written long before BLM, so this can't have been the paper you were referring to. Can you please link to what you were referring to?
I can't read the full paper, but based on the abstract, I am highly skeptical that it supports your statement. In any case, you said:
This paper is more than ten years old and obviously was written long before BLM, so this can't have been the paper you were referring to. Can you please link to what you were referring to?
You asked what by Fryer informed my take you quoted (the one about decades ago), and it was that paper.
As for the more recent papers by him that debunk BLM takes (in this case, that police targets minorities more when it's about shooting them)
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force–officerinvolved shootings–we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.
https://scholar.google.com/citations?vie...
You can read all papers through sci hub
I haven't read that book, but if this blurb is accurate, it seems unlikely very unlikely that the book supports your statement.
Many believe that the urban underclass in America is a large, rapidly increasing proportion of the population; that crime, teenage pregnancy, and high school dropout rates are escalating; and that welfare rolls are exploding. Yet none of these perceptions is accurate. Here, noted authorities, including William J. Wilson, attempt to separate the truth about poverty, social dislocation, and changes in American family life from the myths that have become part of contemporary folklore.
I haven't read that book, but if this blurb is accurate, it seems unlikely very unlikely that the book supports your statement.
If you don't want to read it fine but really if we are going to comment on complex content where concausal factors are examined, data sources discussed and treated, by using single line opinions of someone who read them, we are going to waste our time.
For example the book clarifies that crime isn't escalting too much among them (compared to a few years earlier) but it does tell you it escalated massively from the 50s. Remember we are in 1990 with people thinking "it's getting worse by the day a lot", and they debunk that. But by doing that they give you a picture of the fact that it did get a lot worse than the 50s, just it had already happened in 1990 and it was actually improving a little already by then
You asked what by Fryer informed my take you quoted (the one about decades ago), and it was that paper.
As for the more recent papers by him that debunk BLM takes (in this case, that police targets minorities more when it's about shooting them)
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions
So when you said that Fryer "is particularly good on the subject lately," you were referring to a different subject than the subject we were discussing?
If you don't want to read it fine but really if we are going to comment on complex content where concausal factors are examined, data sources discussed and treated, by using single line opinions of someone who read them, we are going to waste our time.
For example the book clarifies that crime isn't escalting too much among them (compared to a few years earlier) but it does tell you it escalated massively from the 50s. Remember we are in 199
I didn't say anything about whether I wanted to read the book. I said that I hadn't read it. Am I supposed to have read every book? If it cites reliable crime data stratified by race, age, gender, income, education level, and urban v. rural, I would be quite interested to read it.
I didn't say anything about whether I wanted to read the book. I said that I hadn't read it. Am I supposed to have read every book? If it cites reliable crime data stratified by race, age, gender, income, education level, and urban v. rural, I would be quite interested to read it.
The introduction of this paper has some cites from earlier papers on the topic that might include part of the data you are looking for
So when you said that Fryer "is particularly good on the subject lately," you were referring to a different subject than the subject we were discussing?
yes, he asked in general which sources i use (for the topic of crime and so on) , i mentioned one which is fairly famous, got controversial because radical leftists hated him for "race betrayal", got under police protection for death threats, and is quite complicated for normal people to consider racist given he was previously a hero of the left that helped clarify why many negative outcomes of blacks are linked to environmental conditions outside of blacks control (so they aren't guilty of that)
I guess it is self-evident that I am weary of this routine where a poster vaguely implies that there is a provocative conclusion for which they have compelling evidence. Then when you press them on what the conclusion is and the evidence for the conclusion, they water down their own conclusion, dissemble, shift the goalposts, or cite evidence that supports a different conclusion.
But there is no reason for me to expect anything better from the internet, so I will let this topic go.
I guess it is self-evident that I am weary of this routine where a poster vaguely implies that there is a provocative conclusion for which they have compelling evidence. Then when you press them on what the conclusion is and the evidence for the conclusion, they water down their own conclusion, dissemble, shift the goalposts, or cite evidence that supports a different conclusion.
But there is no reason for me to expect anything better fr
Do you have an argument or are you just looking to provoke something bannable from Luciom?
I guess it is self-evident that I am weary of this routine where a poster vaguely implies that there is a provocative conclusion for which they have compelling evidence. Then when you press them on what the conclusion is and the evidence for the conclusion, they water down their own conclusion, dissemble, shift the goalposts, or cite evidence that supports a different conclusion.
But there is no reason for me to expect anything better fr
I mean there is compelling evidence of crime increase from the 50s. There is some evidence from lead removal, some evidence crack cocaine played a role, a lot of evidence the war on drug in general played a role, some evidence out of wedlock births played a role and so on.
If we want to tackle those one at a time we can but i don't understand what's your objection toward me, what about my claims is unsubstantiated according to you? that urban young uneducated males have a very high crime rate?
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/24/rac...
Rococo,
The rates of violence in the US inner city black communities is extremely high, possibly the highest rate of any community or sub-community in the entire Western world, and it has been this way for decades. And there seems to be a consensus (backed by data) it was worse in the 1980s, started decreasing after (but still very high), and following the Floyd riots of 2020 and responding criminal justice "reforms" seems to be trending back up.
No one serious even disputes this. And the truth is given that a disproportionate amount of unsolved crimes happen in this community, the real number has to be significantly higher than any official stats.
The question is what are the causes and what are the solutions. My overall thesis is progressivism attributes false causes, and proposes solutions that will invariably just makes things worse. And from what I can tell the data seem to support this thesis.
And none of my critics even try to use data to argue against this position. They mostly resort to name calling and appeal to emotion, which does nothing to cause me to reconsider this position.
Do you have an argument or are you just looking to provoke something bannable from Luciom?
Are you worried that Luciom actually believes things that would get him banned if he posted candidly, or are you worried that I might be clever enough to provoke him to say something that he doesn't actually believe that would get him banned.
LOL at the latter. I'm not that clever. As for the former, I just want people to say what they believe, explain why they hold their beliefs, and acknowledge when they are just speculating or theorizing. If that exercise results in a poster being banned, that's on them. I don't control what anyone else posts on the internet. But seeing posters banned isn't my goal. As you know, when I was an active mod, I did not have an itchy trigger finger when it came to bans.
My view is that crime is an incredibly complex phenomenon to analyze from a causal perspective. Good data is hard to come by, especially the further back you go, and the number of potentially confounding variables you have to control for when assessing the impact of any one factor is immense.
I do object to the tendency of some posters (not Luciom) to characterize all urban areas as crime-ridden hellscapes, but my feelings on that point admittedly are informed by my anecdotal experience of living in urban areas my entire adult life
https://reason.com/volokh/2021/04/24/rac...
Rococo,
The rates of violence in the US inner city black communities is extremely high, possibly the highest rate of any community or sub-community in the entire Western world, and it has been this way for decades.
And it was lower in the 50s; but it isn't only about blacks
Are you worried that Luciom actually believes things that would get him banned if he posted candidly, or are you worried that I might be clever enough to provoke him to say something that he doesn't actually believe that would get him banned.
Neither. But as you acknowledged, it was transparent what you were doing and it seemed a bit weird coming from you.
LOL at the latter. I'm not that clever. As for the former, I just want people to say what they believe, explain why they hold their beliefs, and acknowledge when they are just speculating or theorizing. If that exercise results in a poster being banned, that's on them. I don't control what anyone else posts on the internet. But seeing posters banned isn't my goal. As you know, when I was an active mod, I did not have an itchy trigger finger when it came to bans.
My view is that crime is an incredibly complex phenomenon to analyze from a causal perspective. Good data is hard to come by, especially the further back you go, and the number of potentially confounding variables you have to control for when assessing the impact of any one factor is immense.
I do object to the tendency of some posters (not Luciom) to characterize all urban areas as crime-riddled hellscapes, but my feelings on that point admittedly are informed by my anecdotal experience of living in urban areas my entire adult life
No objection to any of this. Although you do certainly need to be more careful in urban areas than non-urban areas, I wouldn't characterize most or any of them as hellscapes.
Neither. But as you acknowledged, it was transparent what you were doing and it seemed a bit weird coming from you.
No objection to any of this. Although you do certainly need to be more careful in urban areas than non-urban areas, I wouldn't characterize most or any of them as hellscapes.
I would but not for murder risk, rather for absurd situations linked to homelessness and open air drug abuse. But it's typically very specific small areas
