Quote by Magical_felix
Man, this kid has too much crayon wax in his system.
They don't just exclude one city in the study, that's just something you're making up. It clearly states excluding "cities", that's plural. City also has a technical definition.
I also assumed it was one city per state, but you're right. It doesn't say that.
Quote by Ironic
If the 5 largest cities in the state are Democratic-controlled, and only the largest one is excluded, the effect of the next 4 will be included as if they were Republican (red).
I've shown that's not necessarily the only thing left.
You don't think that excluding the largest city was a gift in the first place?
And also, is your theory that blue pockets in red states are the cause of the homicide issue? When a whole blue state, without any exclusion, still has fewer homicides?
Quote by Ironic
Since this thirdway analysis is political, it's likely to be sensitive to the political makeup of what is and isn't excluded from the number crunching.
Big cities are usually Democratic cities.
The blue/red difference is almost halved when we remove the largest city from the data in red states.
What would happen to the blue/red difference if we removed the Democratic-controlled locations instead of removing the state's largest city?
Thirdway took the numbers reported to the CDC. All murders from a state and whether that state went for Biden or Trump. I don't see a lot of room for manipulation in there.
If big cities are often democratically controlled, to the tune of about 65%, and if big cities experience higher homicide rates, how is excluding the largest city in red state doing anything but helping their statistics?
In addition, they found this for a single year and went back and looked at every years since 2000, just in case it was a fluke. It wasn't.
So, the only thing left to ask is why. Why do red states see this trend?
Quote by Ironic
It's interesting how much the numbers change when accounting for different variables.
"Even when murders in the largest cities in red states are removed, overall murder rates in Trump-voting states were 12% higher than Biden-voting states across this 21-year period and were higher in 18 of the 21 years observed."
After accounting for the larger cities, which often have Democrats running them, the murder rate's about half the headline number. And instead of every year, it's most years.
I wonder if there are other confounding variables.
Is that really a confounding variable?
If we agree that urban areas have higher crime rates in any state, and we remove the largest one from the data in red states (but not in blue), the data should skew towards red states having lower homicide than blue, but it doesn't.
It's essentially giving a runner a 30 second lead and that runner still not winning.
Quote by ElCoco
OK. I couldn't find that either. Identifying where the murders were most frequent could shed some light on the issue.
Quote by Magical_felix
In the report I posted it literally says this.
"Even when murders in the largest cities in red states are removed, overall murder rates in Trump-voting states were 12% higher than Biden-voting states across this 21-year period and were higher in 18 of the 21 years observed."
Just in case any attempt to obfuscate the facts is going on by ElCocko ;)
It looks like it doesn't matter whether it's rural or urban. I missed that, Magical Felix. Thanks.
So, even when you give red states a fairly big handicap, they still have a higher murder rate. I was someone who has been duped by the republican misinformation campaign about blue cities. Democrats really need to push this information.
Quote by ElCoco
Were the cities' murder counts higher or lower than the boonies'?
It didn't break it down by regions within the states.
Quote by Magical_felix
Honor culture sounds like a nice way of saying thin skinned snowflakes. I mean most of them also have a culture of poverty and ignorance. Deep southern states rank amongst the lowest when it comes to people with higher education. Plus they all have guns. I imagine guns + ignorance = murder.
So dumbasses, primed to be offended who also have guns? That sounds about right to me.
Although Bud Light's problems were fairly predictable, IMO.
Just stay out of politics if you're trying to sell things. Bring out the Clydesdales. Everyone likes pretty horses.
Quote by ElCoco
What's the tipping point for the State to take control of local government?
Typically not safety reasons. Typically, it's financial reasons (the local government is in bankruptcy) or educational reasons (deemed "educational bankruptcy").
Well, this is fascinating.
I started looking up studies on this. Every one of the top 10 murder states were either Confederacy states or border states in the Civil War. That doesn't account for all of the 25 states, because not all of these states existed in the Civil War, but includes most of the usual suspects.
Someone did a study in 1994 on the "Southern Culture of Honor". That's here: https://www.simine.com/240/readings/Cohen_et_al_(2).pdf. Basically, a person who was part of this study would be identify as northern or southern raised. Then, someone would bump into them and call them an asshole. Researchers assessed the response, which was far more likely to be confrontational from the Southern raised.
So, if you're born and raised in "Honor Culture" and Republican pundits have you thinking the immigrants are going to invade your home and defile your daughter, you may just be inclined to overreact.
Quote by Chryses
Justices Barrett, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh are doing what Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are doing. They are reviewing the law in the context of their interpretation of the Constitution.
If you accept the linked definition of Originalism, then you accept those words.
It is not true you had to register your gun when the Second Amendment was passed. Many people owned guns who were not members of a militia.
Once Massachusetts ratified the Constitution, it subordinated its laws to those of the United States.
I would like to read the permit to which you refer. I expect it is not a permit to assemble or speak freely but rather a permit to use some public space to protest (assemble and speak freely) something..
The SCOTUS is an integral part of the system and very relevant to Second Amendment issues.
If band-aids are what are available, it would be unwise not to use them.
edited
What I'm saying is that Origionalism would be an appropriate term for this group of judges, except, as the linked definition says, they would need to interpret all statements in the Constitution based on the original understanding "at the time it was adopted". They aren't doing that.
At the time the Constitution was adopted, every free white man, aged 18-45 was required to register themselves and their gun. Officials could come into your home and check how you're keeping both your weapon and your gunpowder. They could disarm you if you didn't take a loyalty oath to the United States. The exact things, a gun registration that existed in 1776, is now being deemed unconstitutional. That is not origionalism.
The band-aids in these cases aren't going to save a single life. They're distractions. What they are going to do is give politicians something to point to, so they can say that they're doing something.
Quote by Chryses
I think you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. It is because no issue is serious enough to warrant a Constitutional Amendment that none will be passed.
edited
I still don't know how to capture everything you said in a quote, so bear with me.
Fifty years isn't a magic number. The cause of the overturn of Roe v Wade wasn't because after 50 years we have some new understanding about abortion. It's because of Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Organizationalization is bastardized by using the 27 words of the Second Amendment without looking at the reality of laws and culture at the time. When the Second Amendment was passed you had to register your gun, because you had to register to be part of the "well regulated militia" and everyone brought their own gun. In Boston it was illegal to have an loaded weapon in your home. You had no right to "stand your ground"; you were obligated to retreat everywhere but in your home.
As for Justice Thomas not knowing other rights that you have to show cause for... apparently he's unfamiliar with needing a permit to hold a protest that had a loudspeaker (assembly, speech).
It may seem off topic to talk about how SCOTUS has changed but isn't. It's exactly the reason why we have to talk about pulling money from the IRS, or arming teachers (FFS), or "good people with guns". Band-aids, if you will. We can give this country a shot of antibiotics with real gun laws, or we can cover the problem with a band-aid and hope it doesn't fester.
Quote by ElCoco
That's why Gov. Newsom's trotting out his amendment speech.
That, and because he's probably angling for a presidential run in 2028.
Quote by Chryses
If the same bill which passed in 1994 could be passed today, I think it would pass constitutional muster again.
Yes, that would be a safe bet.
How much regulation is too little? How much is enough? How much is too much? For the SCOTUS, Justice Scalia wrote, “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited,” and “the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
The manner the U.S. Constitution can be amended was designed to make passing amendments difficult. Making amendments difficult to bring about ensures the subject has had a fair reading and has been thoroughly discussed by all because the entire nation will be changed. Alexander Hamilton spoke at some length about amendments to the Constitution in The Federalist Papers: No. 85.
This is the same SCOTUS that looked at 50 years of Constitutionally supported abortion, and decided that everyone got it wrong but them. The majority are Constitutional Origionalists, or a bastardization of that constitutional theory, and "shall not be infringed" means literally that, to them. They struck down a law in Yew York that's been on the books for decades that says you have to give "proper cause" to concealed carry in public. In that ruling, Justice Thomas said that going forward, courts should uphold gun restrictions only if there is a tradition of such regulation in U.S. history.
So I don't share your optimism. Nor do I think this court will acknowledge that traditions of gun control actually have existed through American history.
Again, I don't think that this country has the political will to pass a Constitutional Amendment on any topic. But I am beyond certain that any federal law that managed to pass will be gutted, whether it's an assault weapons ban or a raise of the legal age to buy a gun. It will all be seen as "infringing".
Quote by Seeker4
The comp page says announcement on June 12, so Monday. But I've seen that run over before when there's a lot of entries or the length is high. Usually 1-2 weeks in my experience, occasionally longer, so June 12 seems on par and probable.
Thanks! See, I skipped all of the useful information and went straight to the stories. 😜
Just out of curiosity, how long does contest judging typically take? I read a few entries and now I'm invested. 😉
Quote by Chryses
An assault rifle ban was passed back in 1994, so that might be possible again.
There need be only an individual to "suffer harm" from a federal law to have standing for a constitutional challenge. Any law prohibiting ownership of a handgun or that has as its intent (e.g., $1,000 tax per box of ammunition) to prevent gun use would be struck down by the SCOTUS. So, regulation, yes, but ban, no.
In 1994, that was a completely different SCOTUS. Moderate to liberal. This SCOTUS is conservative.
"Shall not be infringed" is the rallying cry for gun enthusiasts all across this nation. I'm betting they would consider raising the legal age to 21, when you can be in the military at 18, an infringement against the rights of the non-military, tax-paying, voting 18-20 year olds. There's currently a group suing the Biden administration over waiting periods and there are always groups suing over background checks. All because of the phrase "Shall not be infringed".
Practically, I doubt the ability to even propose ANY Constitutional Amendment on any topic right now, much less something like guns, abortion, racism/sexism or any issue that's partisan.
Quote by Ironic
My use of 'oriental' wasn't and won't be disrespectful.
I hope that someday you'll be able to accept opinions that are different from yours and limit your tendency to accuse others of bigotry. I think it would make the TT a more pleasant place.
Ironic, what's the hesitation? We call people from Europe, European. People from Africa, African. Australia, Australian...
Is "Oriental" conveying something different/more?
Typically, when we're talking about cultural appropriation, it's because those that classically oppress appropriate from the oppressed. A good example is music in America. You can't listen to Led Zeppelin without hearing the outright musical theft, if you've heard any of the originals. So white, male Americans are getting rich off of the art of black Americans.
With this archeological dig, the dynamics are interesting. It's a Dutch dig in Egypt, but the objection is to comparing its influence in largely American black musicians. I don't think they're (the Dutch) getting the history wrong, and Egypt is responding only to how it's being presented. I think that's petty.
Cleopatra is different for me. It's one thing to make fictional characters a different race or sex. It is a whole other matter to do that to someone who existed. The reason we question it now is because of the images Magical Felix posted.
Quote by Chryses
That is the long-term solution. "Reasonable" needs to be fleshed out a bit, and the hurdles are high.
Quote by ElCoco
Talk's cheap, and 'incredibly' was the right word to use.
Absolutely.
Here's the other option, though. They get federal law through both houses of congress and Biden signs it into law. Every red states starts bringing challenges against it and this SCOTUS agrees with every challenge. It's either struck down nationally or so diluted that it's useless.
Quote by Ironic
I used the link you provided. History does influence language, doesn't it?
Sure, but some people get stuck on one era of history. This term was coined in the 14th century. I can think of a lot of groups that would probably like us to not use 14th century terminology to refer to them.
Quote by Ironic
And
"native or inhabitant of the east,"
The world is round. If you're calling someone "from the east" on a global stage, it's from someone else's perspective. In this case, the British Empire. So, instead of letting Asian people name themselves, you would rather use the term of the colonizers.
Who owns history, indeed.
Quote by IMPURETHOUGHTS
Are you sure?
Yep.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/oriental
"....originally vaguely meaning the region east and south of Europe, what is now called the Middle East but also sometimes Egypt and India...."
Quote by IMPURETHOUGHTS
I use oriental too when speaking abous East Asia. Asia is too broad of a word so one must be specific.
"Oriental" isn't even a little bit specific. Historically, refers to everything East of the Suez canal, including goods and people.
Quote by Ironic
I'll keep the 'oriental' dudette, but thanks for the suggestion.
Rugs are Oriental. People are Asian.
Quote by Magical_felix
Every part of Newsom's amendment is heavily favored by the entire US population in various polls. The republicans will still be against it though. It will not happen but the point is to show how unwilling the republicans are to do things that 70% of Americans want. The democrats have to push back against republicans more and more like how Newsom and AOC do. Most normal people don't realize just how in the pocket of corporations and the gun lobby republicans really are and just straight up bought off by dark money too.
The good thing about this proposal is that if you can get it passed, it won't expire and it's really hard to repeal. I get why he's proposing this and not federal legislation. Before this is even possible, though, something like 13 state legislatures have to be flipped from Republican to Democrat, assuming that the Republicans are going to hold the line against it, which like you pointed out they're heavily motivated to do.
In this case, it's a shame that a Constitutional Amendment can't be proposed by a 2/3 or 3/4 popular vote.
Quote by ElCoco
The issue here isn't about teachers as an alternative to guards but instead about the feasibility of arming teachers to defend their students. Based on the information from the RAND survey, it seems plausible.
.
Picking up your idea of the root cause of the problem this band-aid is addressing, the obvious question is, what long-term plan do you propose? Gov Newsom has a suggestion. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/california-gov-gavin-newsom-proposes-constitutional-amendment-tighten-99939042
Well, at least he's offering some sort of solution, though a Constitutional Amendment is an incredibly heavy lift.
Quote by ElCoco
If you check what's in your child's backpack and discover something that your child shouldn't be taking to school, replacing the steak knife with a butter knife, the tool won't be used as a weapon.
.
We agree about the case-by-case issue.
Gun security in your house isn't just about not making sure gun doesn't end up in a backpack. Security starts further back than that. As in, not only shouldn't one end up in a backpack, but one also shouldn't show up on your kitchen table unless you put it there.
My point is that prosecuting parents isn't about their ability to control their children, which, if you're a parent, you know can be challenging. It's about the parent's ability to control the guns they purchased.
