A series of questions for Jocal.... Feel free to play along

[Shootist Jeff 662]

On 10/3/2018 at 7:44 PM, jocal505 said:

(Summary, weapons effect article:)

“Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.”

—Leonard Berkowitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, in a classic, original work

 

 

Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] 

Weapons can even make people aggressive when they cannot “see” them because they are presented subliminally. In a study conducted in our lab[4], for example, participants who were exposed to weapon words (e.g., gun) for only 17/100 second were more aggressive afterwards than were participants exposed to nonaggressive words (e.g., water).

Recent research shows that people can identify guns as quickly as they can identify spiders and snakes.[5], [6], [7] These findings are very interestingbecause guns are modern threats and cannot be explained using evolutionary principles.

Yet guns are a far more dangerous to people today than spiders or snakes. Poisonous spiders (e.g., Black Widows, Brown Recluses) kill about 6 Americans each year.[8] Poisonous snakes (e.g., rattlesnakes) kill about 5 Americans each year .[9] In comparison, guns kill about 31,000 Americans each year.[10]

Several studies have replicated the weapons effect. A review of 56 published studies confirmed that the mere sight of weapons increases aggression in both angry and nonangry individuals.[11] Perhaps the weapons effect occurs because weapons are closely linked to aggression in our brains.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/get-psyched/201301/the-weapons-effect

HO

LEE

FUK!

Are you serious with this shit???  

[Contumacious Tom 671]

11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

A review of 56 published studies confirmed that the mere sight of weapons increases aggression in both angry and nonangry individuals.

I bet they didn't check whether this is true with bacon-covered guns.

[bpm57 24]

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I am curious about gun types and their violent associations, meaning their many violent progressions of thought, yes.

I'm not a believer of an animist religion, Joe. So you will again have to explain how inanimate objects have "violent progressions of thought".

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

By the way, BadLat had zero of that going on. Interesting.

Well, we all know about your run of being a vigilante. Did you own your AW at that time? Did the ownership of said AW influence your thoughts on being a vigilante?

[A guy in the Chesapeake 638]

4 hours ago, bpm57 said:

6 hours ago, jocal505 said:

I am a person who is very curious about violent gun types. I think you get that, right?

Can you possibly explain how an inanimate object can be violent?

He can't - and his behavior indicates that he's not "curious about violent gun types" - He's decided that everyone EXCEPT for himself that has ever owned a gun is intentionally deficient, and by virtue of continuing to own guns, is willfully complicit in every incident of misuse.  Like lots of our friends here, they want to blame everyone EXCEPT the people initiating violence for the problem of violence. 

[jocal505 53]

 

13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

You said that gunz can generate good will and promote non-violence

Nope. You were asking stupid questions,  and streaming gun pics, and you wanted to why or why not some AW was good to go. Then I said.

Quote

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

 

[jocal505 53]

13 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

HO

LEE

FUK!

Are you serious with this shit??? 

Subject matter: The "weapons effect." Come on, you turkey, I think I posted it twice before, with Boothy braying in the background. The theory has critics, which you should be able to present. Go ahead.

 

I'm quite serious with this shit, so let's get started. I haven't read this stuff in oh 55, years, but this is the thrust. 

 

let's play JEFFIE AND THE ANTI-RAPE SQUAD

Using one of his AW's, Jeffie could have picked off both Brett Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, during the alleged attempted rape of a teenager. He could be quite the hero on Fox news. However...

Both MLK and Gandhi would simply say that violence is a chain, made of links, intention, and fabric. That Jeffie is merely trading his own self-righteous personal violence for the rape violence of another. They would see no net gain in the genepool of violence.

Whether you agree or not, do you grasp the concept? They would coach other behavior patterns, and would make conscious choices which set up other behaviors.

[jocal505 53]

12 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I bet they didn't check whether this is true with bacon-covered guns.

Look at you. I've got MLK'sunderstanding for content, and you've got bacon. This is fun. 

 

[Shootist Jeff 662]

13 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

14 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

A review of 56 published studies confirmed that the mere sight of weapons increases aggression in both angry and nonangry individuals.

I bet they didn't check whether this is true with bacon-covered guns.

Your quoting-Fu needs work.  I did not post that stupidity above.  

[Shootist Jeff 662]

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

Then I said.

Quote

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

Exactly, so explain to me how that works.  How do gunz generate goodwill and non-violent behavior?  I need to know so I can choose the right gun that will get a pass from Difi.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

I'm quite serious with this shit, so let's get started.

And I'm quite serious that I want you to answer my question about how gunz generate goodwill and non-violent behavior.  Let's get started.....

[jocal505 53]

22 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Exactly, so explain to me how that works. 

 

Why did the AW record get so much worse after the expiration of the  AW ban in 2004? You don't strut around about the ineffectiveness of that ban, not since I found three different studies that measured benefits of the ban...and problems after the ban expired.

We find that the AW consumer fad is contributing to violence. The record shows that AW's are generating increased gun mayhem, ever since the expiration of, and in the absence of, the AW ban.

That's too bad. If, on the other hand,  tan AW gun #4 generates non-violence, I will support it.

Remember, you only need the root causes of violence solved, and you can have ALL your gunz.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

23 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Exactly, so explain to me how that works. 

 

Blah blah blah assault weapons.

Who's talking about AWs?  I am simply asking you to explain your statement that gunz can generate goodwill and promote non-violent behavior.  I would just like to know how that works and if you can give me some examples.  I'm in the market for a new gun right now and I would like to find one that Difi will give a pass to.  Help a mate out here.....

[jocal505 53]

On 10/2/2018 at 4:53 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

Joey, please Tell the class why this should or should not be banned.  

This question has been answered.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

4 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

That's too bad. If, on the other hand,  tan AW gun #4 generates non-violence, I will support it..

How would I know whether AW gun Tan #4 generates non-violence if you won't explain what it is I'm looking for.  How do we know when it generates non-violence?  How do we know when it generates violence?  Help me out here.  I desperately want to understand this.  I'm fascinated by the concept.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

On 10/2/2018 at 3:53 PM, Shootist Jeff said:

Joey, please Tell the class why this should or should not be banned.  

This question has been answered.

No sir, it has not.  

[jocal505 53]

4 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Who's talking about AWs?

You've lost the plot, eh? TR would link to the thread title, using smarmy words here. But I will get back to the understanding of MLK as a key to grasping the root causes of violence.

I have hijacked a thread, beause my name is on it you fool.

[jocal505 53]

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

About tan gun #4. The answer. ^^^^

[Shootist Jeff 662]

Why won't you just answer the question?  

[Shootist Jeff 662]

Just now, jocal505 said:

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

About tan gun #4. The answer. ^^^^

But that's not an answer.  You said IF the gun generates goodwill and non-violent behavior, it will get a pass.  I'm asking you specifically how do guns generate that behavior and how do you know it when it happens?  How are we going to give it a pass or fail if we don't know what we're looking for?

[jocal505 53]

22 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

But that's not an answer.  You said IF the gun generates goodwill and non-violent behavior, it will get a pass.  I'm asking you specifically how do guns generate that behavior and how do you know it when it happens?  How are we going to give it a pass or fail if we don't know what we're looking for?

Don't dumb it down. Tom gives me the choice between silver flowers in gun barrells, or pinkish ones. You give me tan AW gun #4 vs. snoozer hangun #3. We can do better.

Hmmm, we find SIX PAGES OF JEFFIE'S LOUD SEARCH FOR ROOT CAUSES OF VIOLENCE.  http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/search/&q=root causes&author=Shootist Jeff&search_and_or=or

 

Let's not bolt Joe to the Third Grader Trail, which would violate Joe's signature line. Let's discuss instead the infrastructure to the non-violent mindset.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

28 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

2 hours ago, jocal505 said:

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

About tan gun #4. The answer. ^^^^

Ok, its obvious you are too much of a pussy to answer the question.  So let's try this another way.  You said that if Tan #4 gun generates goodwill and non-violent behavoir that it will get a pass, correct?

I own Tan gun #4.  Have for several years now.  It has generated extremely good will and has never once generated violent-behavior.  In fact it's been a model gun in terms of its behavior as well as its effect on others who are around it.  It has never once even been used to harm an animal much less a human.  It has brought countless hours of enjoyment and generated goodwill among my friends who were interested in operating it.  It generated camaraderie, laughter and delight wherever it goes.  In fact most people comment on its elegant engineering despite its less than, shall we say, classic appearance.  

So.... does my Tan gun #4 get a pass or not?  Why or why not?

[Shootist Jeff 662]

1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

understanding of MLK as a key to grasping the root causes of violence.

I don't need to understand MLK to understand the causes of violence

[Contumacious Tom 671]

1 hour ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I own Tan gun #4.  Have for several years now.  It has generated extremely good will

How can you tell when it's generating good will? Is there a little button somewhere to activate this feature? And is hearing protection needed during good will generation? Are good will-generating guns Smart Guns?

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Then I said.

Quote

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

 

And we laughed and laughed.

But it's really an honest statement. Everyone knows there are no such guns, therefore none should get a pass.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

On 10/3/2018 at 7:44 PM, jocal505 said:

 

(Summary, weapons effect article:)

“Guns not only permit violence, they can stimulate it as well. The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may also be pulling the finger.”

—Leonard Berkowitz, Emeritus Professor of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, in a classic, original work

 

 

Research also shows that drivers with guns in their cars more likely to drive aggressively.[3] 

Weapons can even make people aggressive when they cannot “see” them because they are presented subliminally. In a study conducted in our lab[4], for example, participants who were exposed to weapon words (e.g., gun) for only 17/100 second were more aggressive afterwards than were participants exposed to nonaggressive words (e.g., water).

Recent research shows that people can identify guns as quickly as they can identify spiders and snakes.[5], [6], [7] These findings are very interestingbecause guns are modern threats and cannot be explained using evolutionary principles.

Yet guns are a far more dangerous to people today than spiders or snakes. Poisonous spiders (e.g., Black Widows, Brown Recluses) kill about 6 Americans each year.[8] Poisonous snakes (e.g., rattlesnakes) kill about 5 Americans each year .[9] In comparison, guns kill about 31,000 Americans each year.[10]

Several studies have replicated the weapons effect. A review of 56 published studies confirmed that the mere sight of weapons increases aggression in both angry and nonangry individuals.[11] Perhaps the weapons effect occurs because weapons are closely linked to aggression in our brains.

OMG, I don’t even know where to begin to debunk this “junk science”. Seriously, THIS^^ is what you are hanging your hat on?  You are a fraud along with your urinal reviewed “researchers “. 

[Shootist Jeff 662]

1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

How can you tell when it's generating good will? Is there a little button somewhere to activate this feature? And is hearing protection needed during good will generation? Are good will-generating guns Smart Guns?

Yeah, it’s called the “safety”. Whenever fire is selected, the goodwill generation goes up.  And If it had that 3rd position “fun selection”, the goodwill generation would skyrocket. 

[Contumacious Tom 671]

2 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Yeah, it’s called the “safety”. Whenever fire is selected, the goodwill generation goes up.  And If it had that 3rd position “fun selection”, the goodwill generation would skyrocket. 

Would unicorns dance under brass rainbows?

I thought Joe's "good will generator" was the funniest thing on the internet this year but once again the master rules. There's nothing funnier than Rimas. Now Jean wants to teach him to sail by chaining him to a dock. Beat that, Joe.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Then I said.

Quote

If the gun will generate good will and non-violent behavior, Di Fi should give it a pass.

 

 And we laughed and laughed.

But it's really an honest statement. Everyone knows there are no such guns, therefore none should get a pass.

WAIT!!!  You mean that jocal doesn’t actually think gunz can generate goodwill and promote non-violent behavior????  That it was a disingenuous ploy all along???  I’m shocked!  Shocked I say!  Why didn’t he just say so when I asked him repeatedly to explain himself?  

And here I thought he just wanted to get a room and get a serious discussion started. 

[Shootist Jeff 662]

8 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

Would unicorns dance under brass rainbows?

I thought Joe's "good will generator" was the funniest thing on the internet this year but once again the master rules. There's nothing funnier than Rimas. Now Jean wants to teach him to sail by chaining him to a dock. Beat that, Joe.

Don’t sell joe short now...  he’s EVERY bit as capable of out-Rimasimg Rimas when is comes to this subject. 

And he’ll, Rimas has a far better command of the English language when it comes to the written word. Some of Rimas’ stuff is pure poetry. But there’s been many the time I’ve reread a jocal post several times and I still come away scratching my head. 

[Contumacious Tom 671]

In other good will generation news, there are bullet-shaped whiskey stones.

A little whiskey can generate some good will, but you might not want to take those on a plane.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

9 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

In other good will generation news, there are bullet-shaped whiskey stones.

A little whiskey can generate some good will, but you might not want to take those on a plane.

Ooooh, definitely want some of those!

speaking of whiskey

[jocal505 53]

On 10/4/2018 at 9:09 AM, chinabald said:

If you think you are making MLK proud you are a bigger narcissist then I thought. MLK would take you and your soft racism and toss you out of the conversation. 

I've looked Black Panthers in the eye, and Farrakahn's elk in the eye, too...during a fracas they started. I would look MLK in the eye. If he blew me off, I would drop the name of a certain leper lover. I feel like I've paid my dues on this one.

But never mind that. Seriously, you must have some insights to share,  to minimize "soft racism." Let it rip mate.

[jocal505 53]

On 10/5/2018 at 3:31 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

OMG, I don’t even know where to begin to debunk this “junk science”. Seriously, THIS^^ is what you are hanging your hat on?  You are a fraud along with your urinal reviewed “researchers “. 

This belongs in the Jeffie cliche file/be careful with the blatant lies around here.

According to the scientists, junk science involves formulas which do not play out across broad applications of theory.  Scientists in the NAS conclude that John R. Lott, and Gary Kleck have presented textbook junk science.

Oh, about my source. Peers have been able to reflect on "the weapons effect" for fifty years.

Quote

Abstract 

Over 30 years ago, Berkowitz & LePage (1967) published the first study demonstrating that the mere presence of a weapon increases aggressive behavior. This has been replicated in several contexts by several research teams. The standard explanation of this weapons effect on aggressive behavior involves priming; identification of a weapon is believed to automatically increase the accessibility of aggression-related thoughts.

Two experiments using a word pronunciation task tested this hypothesis. Both experiments consisted of multiple trials in which a prime stimulus (weapon or nonweapon) was followed by a target word (aggressive or nonaggressive) which was to be read as quickly as possible. The prime stimuli were words or pictures, in Experiments 1 and 2, respectively. Both experiments showed that the mere identification of a weapon primes aggression-related thoughts. A process model linking weapons as primes to aggressive behavior is briefly discussed.

© 1997 by Craig A. Anderson   http://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/1995-1999/98ABB.html

SUBJECT: Do perceptions change when packing?

Quote

Study: Carrying a gun can make you more paranoid

March, 2012

That’s what researchers at University of Notre Dame have concluded after conducting a study to determine whether the simple act of wielding a gun alters the way people see the world. Previous studies have already suggested that visual perception can be highly subjective, depending on your attributes. For instance, it’s been shown that people with broader shoulders tend to perceive doorways to be narrower, and softball players with higher batting averages perceive the ball to be bigger. However, can just picking up a gun suddenly make the world appear more violent?

 

To find out, the researchers subjected volunteers to a series of five experiments in which they were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and determined whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.

 

The researchers varied the situation in each experiment — such as having the people in the images sometimes wear ski masks, changing the race of the person in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they judged the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation, the study showed that responding with a gun created a bias in which observers reported a gun being present more often than they did responding with a ball. Thus, by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior, such as raising a firearm to shoot.

“Beliefs, expectations and emotions can all influence an observer’s ability to detect and to categorize objects as guns,” said James Brockmole, a professor of Psychology and a co-author of the study . “Now we know that a person’s ability to act in certain ways can bias their recognition of objects as well, and in dramatic ways. It seems that people have a hard time separating their thoughts about what they perceive and their thoughts about how they can or should act.”

The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that while simply letting observers see a nearby gun didn't influence their behavior, holding and using the gun did.

“One reason we supposed that wielding a firearm might influence object categorization stems from previous research in this area, which argues that people perceive the spatial properties of their surrounding environment in terms of their ability to perform an intended action,” Brockmole said.

The study is detailed in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/study-carrying-a-gun-can-make-you-more-paranoid/

 

 

[chinabald 314]

5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Study: Carrying a gun can make you more paranoid

March, 2012

That’s what researchers at University of Notre Dame have concluded after conducting a study to determine whether the simple act of wielding a gun alters the way people see the world. Previous studies have already suggested that visual perception can be highly subjective, depending on your attributes. For instance, it’s been shown that people with broader shoulders tend to perceive doorways to be narrower, and softball players with higher batting averages perceive the ball to be bigger. However, can just picking up a gun suddenly make the world appear more violent?

 

To find out, the researchers subjected volunteers to a series of five experiments in which they were shown multiple images of people on a computer screen and determined whether the person was holding a gun or a neutral object such as a soda can or cell phone. Subjects did this while holding either a toy gun or a neutral object such as a foam ball.

 

The researchers varied the situation in each experiment — such as having the people in the images sometimes wear ski masks, changing the race of the person in the image or changing the reaction subjects were to have when they judged the person in the image to hold a gun. Regardless of the situation, the study showed that responding with a gun created a bias in which observers reported a gun being present more often than they did responding with a ball. Thus, by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun and, as a result, to engage in threat-induced behavior, such as raising a firearm to shoot.

“Beliefs, expectations and emotions can all influence an observer’s ability to detect and to categorize objects as guns,” said James Brockmole, a professor of Psychology and a co-author of the study . “Now we know that a person’s ability to act in certain ways can bias their recognition of objects as well, and in dramatic ways. It seems that people have a hard time separating their thoughts about what they perceive and their thoughts about how they can or should act.”

The researchers showed that the ability to act is a key factor in the effects by showing that while simply letting observers see a nearby gun didn't influence their behavior, holding and using the gun did.

“One reason we supposed that wielding a firearm might influence object categorization stems from previous research in this area, which argues that people perceive the spatial properties of their surrounding environment in terms of their ability to perform an intended action,” Brockmole said.

The study is detailed in an upcoming issue of the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/thinking-tech/study-carrying-a-gun-can-make-you-more-paranoid/

 

So in other words its toy guns that are the problem? That is what this study used.

Also the bold and large font part is pretty funny when you consider. Of course holding and using a gun will influence behavior, Did these same people study other objects and decide that People how can see and/or hold a baseball bat are more likely to use a bat then those who have no idea where the nearest baseball bat is. Did they determine that people who are holding or in the room with cookies eat more cookies then people who have no idea where the nearest cookie is. You are more likely to pet a dog, if there is a dog in the room.... Brilliant 

[Contumacious Tom 671]

20 minutes ago, chinabald said:

So in other words its toy guns that are the problem?

He has already mentioned that BB guns generate bad will, so it's no surprise that toy guns do too. And before you ask, of course Pop Tart guns generate bad will.

[chinabald 314]

4 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

He has already mentioned that BB guns generate bad will, so it's no surprise that toy guns do too. And before you ask, of course Pop Tart guns generate bad will.

they getted jammed in the toaster too

[jocal505 53]

5 hours ago, chinabald said:

So in other words its toy guns that are the problem? That is what this study used.

Also the bold and large font part is pretty funny when you consider. Of course holding and using a gun will influence behavior, Did these same people study other objects and decide that People how can see and/or hold a baseball bat are more likely to use a bat then those who have no idea where the nearest baseball bat is. Did they determine that people who are holding or in the room with cookies eat more cookies then people who have no idea where the nearest cookie is. You are more likely to pet a dog, if there is a dog in the room.... Brilliant 

So a guy who is packing guns is oriented towards gun mayhem, basically. And others swinging bats are oriented towards home plate. I get it. Thus explains the increased rates of violent crime, especially in areas where CCP is easy peasy.

I feature research by Tom Ray, from today. John Donohue is quoted 85 times in Tom's morning link. Donohue extended the NAS's  indifference about "more guns less crime" to a conclusion, which they eventually accepted. Twice.

Quote

Several studies suggest that “the clear majority of states” that enact laws broadly allowing concealed carrying of firearms in public “experience increases in violent crime, murder, and robbery when [those] laws are adopted.” John J. Donohue, The Impact of Concealed-Carry Laws, in Evaluating Gun Policy Effects on Crime and Violence 287, 320 (2003)

,http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971 6-9 EB opinion plus webcites.pdf

 Researchers Ian Ayres, from Yale Law School, and John Donohue, from Stanford Law School, did just this, and examined 14 additional jurisdictions between 1992 and 1996 that adopted concealed carry laws. Using Lott’s own model, they found that these jurisdictions were associated with more crime in all crime categories. In other words, “More Guns, More Crime.” Ayres and Donohue conclude with the rather damning paragraph, “Those who were swayed by the statistical evidence previously offered by Lott and Mustard to believe the more guns, less crime hypothesis should now be more strongly inclined to accept the even stronger statistical evidence suggesting the crime inducing effect of shall issue laws.” http://ideas.repec.org/a/ejw/journl/v5y2008i3p269-293.html

Later, he expanded this work.

Quote

Aneja, Donohue II, 2012, '77 to 2010, The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report:

The Latest Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy

Abhay Aneja, John J. Donohue III, Alexandria Zhang

The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent – and this may actually be understated, according to the researchers.

(...) The data from 1979 to 2010 provide evidence that the laws are associated with an increase in rape and robbery.

 

[jocal505 53]

We have been searching for the root causes of violence, and we find that CCP's cause an increase in violence. And that weapons lead to violent mental approaches to certain problems, which lead to violent physical approaches. We are belittling science, without proving that our violence is effective.

 

 

[chinabald 314]

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

We have been searching for the root causes of violence, and we find that CCP's cause an increase in violence. And that weapons lead to violent mental approaches to certain problems, which lead to violent physical approaches. We are belittling science, without proving that our violence is effective.

 

 

When you do your “research” do you ever seek out studies that oppose your ideas, or so you merely seek out echo chambers? 

[jocal505 53]

3 hours ago, chinabald said:

When you do your “research” do you ever seek out studies that oppose your ideas, or so you merely seek out echo chambers? 

LMFAO.

You have a very distinct problem here. I have already tracked (and organized, and presented) your best researchers, and your best authors, on PA. Each group was quite disappointing, and I can source my disappointments by the fucking page numbers.

 

 

I read as much as I could find of your researchers a few years ago. Here they are, sport. Have I missed any?

Quote

THE PRIMARY RESEARCHERS of "THE STANDARD MODEL"

• John R. Lott (Even Alan Gottlieb and Joyce Malcom quote him, shame shame)
• Gary Kleck (tried to present SDU's all over the blueprint for causal study, Priorities for Research)
• Kates and Mauser (their polemic was widely quoted as "Harvard", in a blitz of fake news)
• maybe Economist Mark Duggan

Later, I read the stuff from your authors, below. Both these groups share similar relationships with the truth, and similar relationships with peer review, as our (very lovable)Tom Ray.

Quote

THE PRIMARY SCHOLARS of "THE STANDARD MODEL"

1. Joyce Lee Malcolm, Libertarian
2. Don Kates, Libertarian
3. David Caplan, Libertarian
4. Clayton Kramer, Libertarian
5. David Kopel, Libertarian
6. Steven Halbrook, Libertarian, 
7. Nelson Lund, Libertarian
8. Mark Reynolds, Libertarian
9. Randy Barnett, Libertarian
10. <Eugene Volokh > your go-to-guy, if you are well-read

 

[Contumacious Tom 671]

18 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Peers have been able to reflect on "the weapons effect" for fifty years.

Which urinals feature it on the wall?

And how do magical good will-generating guns overcome this effect, if any exist?

[jocal505 53]

1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

Which urinals feature it on the wall?

And how do magical good will-generating guns overcome this effect, if any exist?

Hi Tom. Neuroscientists are presently gaining a grasp on violence. They are being led by an epidemic fighter with Uganda on his resume.

Quote

 If we can begin to draw on the fairly new research findings of social psychology (40 to 50 years old) and functional magnetic resonance imaging of the brain (15 to 20 years old), connect these findings with what is known from infectious disease epidemiology, and add the first studies of new therapeutic approaches—we can now define a new set of causations and strategies to reduce violence more predictably. Understanding epidemiology and invisible brain mechanisms will carry us farther out of the middle ages to new possibilities immediately available.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK207245/

He is proposing a model, and five key orgs and researchers support it. He is fighting the root causes of violence, using science. He has seen that epidemic deaths key on, and become propelled by, panic and fear.

He came home to the USA  from devastation in Rwanda, Burundi, Zaire, The Congo, and Tanzania... and recognized an epidemic of violence in the USA.

He is sorting this. One of Gary Slutkin's model premises to fight the epidemic infection of violence is positive orientation. Another is neutralizing "us vs. them" psychology. His training and concerns focus quite a bit  on the forces of peer pressure. Hi Tom, indeed.

Set dogballs aside. Which side of our struggle with violence itself will you weigh in on?

[jocal505 53]

On 10/5/2018 at 12:52 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I own Tan gun #4.  Have for several years now.  It has generated extremely good will and has never once generated violent-behavior. 

Hold on, mate.You have been a real shithead the past several years. During that timeframe, you featured the rape of other men's wives, plural, as a snappy talking point. The gaps in your social understanding were covered by the scapegoating of the less fortunate. Dabs Lite in now good enough for you these days. WTF?

You cast no fine reflection on AW's.

[Contumacious Tom 671]

5 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Which side of our struggle with violence itself will you weigh in on?

The good side, of course.

That's why I'm so interested in a gun that generates good will.

I assume my assault weapon does not, since it's darn similar to yours, which you destroyed.

If people on the bad side have assault weapons like mine, what kind of good will generating gun should I use to struggle against them?

[Shootist Jeff 662]

19 hours ago, chinabald said:

20 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

And before you ask, of course Pop Tart guns generate bad will.

they getted jammed in the toaster too

FTE (Failure to Eject)???  SEE.... poptarts really are like gunz!

[jocal505 53]

4 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

The good side, of course.

That's why I'm so interested in a gun that generates good will.

I assume my assault weapon does not, since it's darn similar to yours, which you destroyed.

If people on the bad side have assault weapons like mine, what kind of good will generating gun should I use to struggle against them?

Back to dogballs. I asked you to set dogballs aside long enough to discuss your position on violence.

Can you  basically weigh in against violence? In order to protect the dogballs, are you interested in rooting out. and addressing, the causes of violence in the USA?

[Contumacious Tom 671]

3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Can you  basically weigh in against violence? In order to protect the dogballs, are you interested in rooting out. and addressing, the causes of violence in the USA?

I thought I just did weigh in?

I think the biggest single cause of violence in the US is our stupid drug war. I address it here.

 

[jocal505 53]

11 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I thought I just did weigh in?

You went to your duck blind, dogballs.

 

11 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I think the biggest single cause of violence in the US is our stupid drug war. I address it here.

• The drug war does not cause domestic violence.
• The drug war did not factor in at the Burger King Gun Scramble. What part of the drug war would cause you, as an employer, to shoot an employee at work (over a wage dispute, ffs) the second time you were shoved?
• Down at the Plebe's Revenge shootout, the seriously injured plebe could have driven away, but you blessed the shootout he chose instead. No drugs were involved.

[jocal505 53]

Jeffie once started a thread on Gary Slutkin's work, with admiration, IIRC. I have no link. Hint: Jeffie keyed on a movie called "Interrupters."

Slutkin is a medical doctor, once trained in infectious diseases in SF. He now studies the causes of violence, and relates it to the data on historical epidemics, most of which he witnessed up closely and personally.

Um, the guy already has serious creds IN THE HOOD.  Remarkable shit in Chicago, specifically.

Quote

'37% drop in Chicago neighborhood shootings; gang dustups have 90 day retribution cycles, which repeat

Second effort had 45% results, the  30% to 50% results, and in another 40% to 70% reductions resulted

Here's a video link to a fast summary of his bit. http://cureviolence.org/post/cv-video/gary-slutkin-at-tedmed-2013/

 

He once faced rampant diseases among one million refugees, in forty camps, and he was one of six doctors. He did what Gandhi and MLK had done, be began training regugees to train and educate others. And this is what he did with Chicago-type gang situations, over and over and over,  successfully.

I once did a key part of the work he lays out. These days it is called "violence interruption," and in those days our training was quite sketchy. 

Slutkin 2013 VIOLENCE IS A CONTAGIOUS DISEASE 6

Quote

CONFLICT RESOLUTION

• Changing Norms and Behavior
• Treating Violence as an Epidemic
• Violence and Economics
• Violence Prevention Strategy: The Critical Role of Health Sector

 

[Contumacious Tom 671]

19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

20 hours ago, dogballs Tom said:

I think the biggest single cause of violence in the US is our stupid drug war. I address it here.

• The drug war does not cause domestic violence.
• The drug war did not factor in at the Burger King Gun Scramble. What part of the drug war would cause you, as an employer, to shoot an employee at work (over a wage dispute, ffs) the second time you were shoved?
• Down at the Plebe's Revenge shootout, the seriously injured plebe could have driven away, but you blessed the shootout he chose instead. No drugs were involved.

You can probably find a few other examples. That's why I didn't claim the stupid drug war is the ONLY cause of violence.

But just like alcohol prohibition led to violent gangs and corrupt government officials, the same thing is happening today with our idiotic drug war.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

19 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Jeffie once started a thread on Gary Slutkin's work, with admiration, IIRC. I have no link. Hint: Jeffie keyed on a movie called "Interrupters."

I think you need to go get checked for Alzheimer's.  I started no such thread that I am aware of.  Seriously, seek some help on this, I've been watching you decline even more rapidly of late.  There are some interesting new therapies in development out there.  You never know if you catch it early enough...... Just saying.

[jocal505 53]

37 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think you need to go get checked for Alzheimer's.  I started no such thread that I am aware of.  Seriously, seek some help on this, I've been watching you decline even more rapidly of late.  There are some interesting new therapies in development out there.  You never know if you catch it early enough...... Just saying.

I remember your post about Slutkin's "interrupters" very clearly.  You were filled with shallow Jeffie wonder. Whether it became one of your many threads is beside the point. Slutkin's scientific progress, his effective grasp of global epidemics, is now the topic of conversation.

I hope you can keep up, Jeffie.

 

[jocal505 53]

1 hour ago, dogballs Tom said:

The drug war does not cause domestic violence.

The drug war did not take Travon Martin down. The drug war doesn't motivate hurricane looters. The drug war doesn't precipitate rape when women get out of showers..

Violence is not made of drugs. Violence does not form up the desire for drugs...and violence is not to be equated to, or conflated with, drugs..

Put your Kelo brain in gear, set dogballs aside, and think about violence.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

20 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Can you  basically weigh in against violence? In order to protect the dogballs, are you interested in rooting out. and addressing, the causes of violence in the USA?

Can you???  I've asked you numerous times what YOU think (not what you parrot what others think).  But I have had numerous, numerous posts on addressing and identifying the root causes of violence.

Here's just one example of many:

Quote

 

An objective view of our current situation would look first at what has changed and lament and focus on those things.  There is nothing about any current "interpretations" of a 200 year old amendment has done anything to change the access to gunz.  No SCOTUS ruling has made gunz easier to get.  Gunz are FAR harder to buy legally NOW than they were when I bought my first AR-15 in 1984.  

Look instead to the breakdown in social norms that once frowned on violence but now glorifies it.  Look to the breakdown in social norms that once discouraged interpersonal conflict but now encourages and even celebrates it now.  I'm sorry but the root cause, yet again, is not gunz or other toolz .  It is a breakdown in society and our little liberal dystopian experiment in "anything goes", no one has any personal responsibility for their actions, its always someone else's fault, everyone gets a trophy for fogging a mirror, and all conflicts must be resolved with violence because that what we see on TV and movies and music and CNN all day and every day has come back to bite us in the ass.  

So congrats..... gunz are not to blame here because we've always had gunz in our society and they were not a problem in our recent past.  What has changed is society is fucked and people are getting fucked daily and finding various ways to cope.  Huge numbers of people are killing themselves with Opioids, others put a gun in their mouth or a rope around their neck and check out, others are killing other people for the fun of it.  All of those things have a root cause in a decayed and failing society.  Gunz are not causing that.

[/rant]  

 

You could also try the search function:  http://forums.sailinganarchy.com/index.php?/search/&amp;q="root cause"&amp;page=1&amp;author=Shootist Jeff&amp;search_and_or=or&amp;sortby=relevancy

I have many many posts discussing the very complex series of the root causes of violence.  Your sole root cause of violence???  GUNZ.  Balls!

[Shootist Jeff 662]

14 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

I remember your post about Slutkin's "interrupters" very clearly.  You were filled with shallow Jeffie wonder. Whether it became one of your many threads is beside the point. Slutkin's scientific progress, his effective grasp of global epidemics, is now the topic of conversation.

I hope you can keep up, Jeffie.

 

Uhhh  Mmmkay.  

 

Again, I would highly implore you to seek some medical help or at least go get screened for your obvious onset of dementia.  

[jocal505 53]

26 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Your sole root cause of violence???  GUNZ.  Balls!

Guns were a six year teaser for me Jeffie. You see,  I served my well regulated duty to society in black inner cities, as MLK set my compass.  I sought the virtu of the citizenship of the founding fathers, as I prepared for a conversation with an idiot soldier some day. You are that guy, mate. I assure you, we're just getting started.

Are you claiming to have a grasp on the nature of violence? At a minimum, I note that you are claiming to have been searching for the root causes of violence

[Shootist Jeff 662]

3 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Guns were a six year teaser for me Jeffie. As I served my well regulated duty to society in black inner cities, and as MLK set my compas  and as I hopefully formed my personal virtu, I prepared for a conversation with an idiot soldier some day. You are that guy, mate. I assure you, we're just getting started.

Are you claiming to have a grasp on the nature of violence? At a minimum, I note that you are claiming to have been searching for the root causes of violence

Well, since you claim to have been battle-tested and hardened in the car jumping zone - please enlighten us mere plebes as to what you think are the root causes of violence.  We await your sage knowledge and wisdom and yearn for your edumacation you are about to impart on us.

[Contumacious Tom 671]

5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, since you claim to have been battle-tested and hardened in the car jumping zone - please enlighten us mere plebes as to what you think are the root causes of violence.  We await your sage knowledge and wisdom and yearn for your edumacation you are about to impart on us.

I think I figured it out. Good will-generating guns probably shoot Kool cigarettes.

[jocal505 53]

 

I'm far from certain what these root causes are. If I knew, and IF could throw it down in 25 words or less, you would distort it in the next post, since that's how you treat peer-reviewed empirical evidence on two different subjects, maybe three counting global warming.

What I can see, clearly, is that you are stuck on the wrong page. BTW, Slutkin says the entire USA is stuck on violence. But he notes how others got un-stuck on other epidemics.

Thanks for the thread, seriously.

[jocal505 53]

6 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

I think I figured it out. Good will-generating guns probably shoot Kool cigarettes.

I demand Kelo Tom.

Dogballs Tommie is not good enough for our cool forum.

[jocal505 53]

25 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Well, since you claim to have been battle-tested and hardened in the car jumping zone - please enlighten us mere plebes as to what you think are the root causes of violence.  We await your sage knowledge and wisdom and yearn for your edumacation you are about to impart on us.

Look at my MO mate. I'm no expert, but I go and find experts and read their shit, don't I? MLK, Gandhi, and Slutkin each have plenty to offer us. 

Look at your MO mate. You will not proceed in good faith. I am prepared for that, too.

[jocal505 53]

On 10/10/2018 at 2:41 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

On 10/9/2018 at 5:30 AM, jocal505 said:

Can you  basically weigh in against violence? In order to protect the dogballs, are you interested in rooting out. and addressing, the causes of violence in the USA?

Can you???  I've asked you numerous times what YOU think (not what you parrot what others think).  But I have had numerous, numerous posts on addressing and identifying the root causes of violence.

Here's just one example of many:

Correct. You deflect to the root causes of violence, all the time. So we're gonna get into it.

And you deflect to gang violence and gansta pics, too, so let's proceed.

I have been following Slutkin's bit for three days, and have found NO CONTENT ABOUT GUNZ. He just fights epidemics as such, and has now chosen a fight against an epidemic of violence in the USA. He battles gang gunfighters, not NRA types as such, as I do.

Quote

Philadelphia Evaluation – NIJ/Temple University/John Jay

A 2017 evaluation of the Cure Violence program in Philadelphia found significant reductions in violence associated with the program.

Highlights

• 30% reduction in shootings (comparing the 24 months before the implementation of CeaseFire to the 24 months after implementation)
• In the five hotspot areas, CeaseFire was associated with a statistically significant reduction in both total shootings (victims of all ages) and shootings of individuals between the ages of 10 and 35.
• Although in some models comparison groups also showed reductions in shootings, these reductions were either not statistically significant or not as large as those in the CeaseFire target areas.
• Download the full Philadelphia evaluation report
• http://cureviolence.org/results/scientific-evaluations/

He has vast and impressive credentials, as we speak,  showing success in limiting or eliminating gang violence. You might like his approach, and his results.

Um, he's targeting gangstas, but behavior mod is part of his success. Note to @A guy in the Chesapeake , maybe you're right that human behavior will be expected, by scientists, to budge.

[bpm57 24]

On 10/12/2018 at 11:25 AM, jocal505 said:

You deflect to the root causes of violence, all the time.

The rest of us don't believe firearms are sentient. Joe.

On 10/12/2018 at 11:25 AM, jocal505 said:

and have found NO CONTENT ABOUT GUNZ.

Its almost like an inanimate object doesn't commit violence by itself..

 

[Shootist Jeff 662]

12 hours ago, bpm57 said:

On 10/12/2018 at 7:25 PM, jocal505 said:

and have found NO CONTENT ABOUT GUNZ.

Its almost like an inanimate object doesn't commit violence by itself..

Bazinga!

[jocal505 53]

2 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Bazinga!

Are you an expert, or a poser with an agenda? You need to address the science which wants guns out of U.S. homes, based on the statistical evidence that damage is done by even having guns around. Homicides in homes with guns are 300% more frequent. Teen and other suicides in homes with guns are 1000% more frequent.

Some dynamic is evident, with guns being an active agent in the dynamic. The pro-violence Bazinga Kid needs to address this. 

[jocal505 53]

 

“The brain has mechanisms for imitation and copying, in particular for violence. It’s very copyable and it’s so emotionally laden,” Slutkin says. “People follow what their friends do [and] it’s also largely unconscious. This causes mobs to behave exactly like other contagious diseases.”

What makes for a contagious disease? It’s something, like tuberculosis in the lungs or cholera in the intestines, that is able to produce more of itself and spread, making the human a vessel for contagion. Violence follows this pattern, Slutkin says.  

“I didn’t make it a disease and I didn’t make it contagious,” he says. “We just connected the dots, then demonstrated that if you treat it that way, guess what? It bends. It responds a lot.”

This man has seen many die. 

 

 

[badlatitude 833]

 

Good God, 4 dead at a 1-year-old birthday party. How can some people defend this?

 "Law enforcement officials are investigating a shooting Saturday that has left four people dead outside the city limits, a Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman confirmed.

Sgt. Nathan Brandley, a spokesman for the Texas Department of Public Safety, said the shooting occurred at 5:15 p.m. on the 500 block of Wilburn Street.

Brandley said an altercation took place between two families at a 1-year-old’s birthday party that escalated into a deadly shooting. Brandley said earlier on Saturday the Texas Rangers were the lead investigators.

“Four adult males were found dead on scene,” Brandley said. “The fifth male was HALO-Flighted to Christus Spohn Hospital Shoreline.” 

Brandley said the fifth male’s condition is unknown. 

Two suspects involved in the shooting are at-large, Brandley added.

“The Texas Rangers notified the department of the incident and as of right now this is an ongoing investigation,” he said. “We are urging residents to contact DPS if they know any information on the shooting.” 

https://www.caller.com/story/news/2018/10/13/shooting-taft-leaves-multiple-people-dead/1634096002/

[bpm57 24]

13 minutes ago, badlatitude said:

How can some people defend this?

Who defends it?

Or do you believe that the firearms started shooting themselves?

[chinabald 314]

3 hours ago, jocal505 said:

 

“The brain has mechanisms for imitation and copying, in particular for violence. It’s very copyable and it’s so emotionally laden,” Slutkin says. “People follow what their friends do [and] it’s also largely unconscious. This causes mobs to behave exactly like other contagious diseases.”

What makes for a contagious disease? It’s something, like tuberculosis in the lungs or cholera in the intestines, that is able to produce more of itself and spread, making the human a vessel for contagion. Violence follows this pattern, Slutkin says.  

“I didn’t make it a disease and I didn’t make it contagious,” he says. “We just connected the dots, then demonstrated that if you treat it that way, guess what? It bends. It responds a lot.”

This man has seen many die. 

 

 

Maybe we should try some of these gun control laws in Chicago and see if they reduce the number of homicides. For sure that will tell us how well these laws work. 

[Shootist Jeff 662]

1 hour ago, badlatitude said:

 

Good God, 4 dead at a 1-year-old birthday party. How can some people defend this?

 "Law enforcement officials are investigating a shooting Saturday that has left four people dead outside the city limits, a Texas Department of Public Safety spokesman confirmed.

 

I'm sorry.... who's defending it???  And what are we supposedly defending?

[jocal505 53]

1 hour ago, chinabald said:

Maybe we should try some of these gun control laws in Chicago and see if they reduce the number of homicides. For sure that will tell us how well these laws work. 

Hi cb. You aren't keeping up, but you could rise above Jeffie and Tom. Slutkin has had stunning results in Chicago, and it was documented three times. He had results elsewhere, too. You should check him out to contribute to the conversation, and you haven't done so.  http://cureviolence.org/understand-violence/changing-behavior/

[jocal505 53]

34 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm sorry.... who's defending it???  And what are we supposedly defending?

You carry a violent mental framework, supporting the casual, institutional violence of others.

You train others in the violent arts, as well. You told us you are a certified range instructor, correct? You got training for that certification, correct? Tell us a bit about that.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

5 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

You carry a violent mental framework, supporting the institutionall violence of others.

I do??  How so?  How do I support the violence of others.

Quote

You train others in the violent arts, as well. You told us you are a certified range instructor, correct? You got training for that certification, correct? Tell us a bit about that.

Are Karate instructors also considered people who train others in the violent arts?  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

[Shootist Jeff 662]

9 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

Slutkin has had stunning results in Chicago three times. Elsewhere, too. Check him out.

Stunning results?  Really?  Like what?  Link to them please.  I'm fascinated.

[jocal505 53]

1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I do??  How so?  How do I support the violence of others.

Are Karate instructors also considered people who train others in the violent arts?  Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

You are deflecting. We want to know if you were trained to train violence into others, in gun range settings. 

[Shootist Jeff 662]

1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

You are deflecting. We want to know if you were trained to train violence into others, in gun range settings. 

Answer my question about Karate instructors.  Are they training violence into others?  

[jocal505 53]

10 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Stunning results?  Really?  Like what?  Link to them please.  I'm fascinated.

You are a phony? You didn't follow your muse to this hot info on Chicago, after seven pages of posts manipulasting violence in Chicago, and two more pages manipulating tragedy using Shitcago?

The guy is good. I did a gig for him in Seattle twenty years ago.

[Shootist Jeff 662]

1 minute ago, jocal505 said:

You are a phony? You didn't follow your muse to this hot info on Chicago, after seven pages of posts about Chicago, and two more pages is Shitcago?

The guy is good. I did a gig for him in Seattle twenty years ago.

Great.  Post his stunning results then, please.

[jocal505 53]

1 minute ago, Shootist Jeff said:

Answer my question about Karate instructors.  Are they training violence into others?  

You answered a question, with a question about other violence.  The subject right now is your own violent makeup, if any.

You were mean-spirited and proud as you announced that you are a range instructor. Yell us about the stance on violence in that setting,

[jocal505 53]

Just now, Shootist Jeff said:

Great.  Post his stunning results then, please.

I already linked it two different ways. Gary Slutkin is the guy you've been looking for. You gotta like the name.

 http://cureviolence.org/understand-violence/changing-behavior/