The link between gun 'enthusiasm' and racism is strong

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 28, 2019 8:54 pm

NOTE: This thread in no way claims that everyone who owns a gun is racist. Anyone who claims otherwise did not even read the first two sentences of this post and is thus to be disregarded as a fool, a fool!

The gun-rights advocate group the National Rifle Association recently did away with its Internet TV station, NRATV, amid controversy over some of its content, such as this:

The link between gun 'enthusiasm' and racism is strong Loesch-tank_qxvhis

https://www.thedailybeast.com/nra-officials-found-nratv-messaging-to-be-distasteful-and-racist-lawsuit

This made me remember other times when I've found that two issues -- the right to gun ownership and racist attitudes -- mysteriously linked. I say mysteriously, because it doesn't immediately follow, to me, that people who want to preserve their right to own a gun would also be really worried about television shows with diverse casts.

So I dug a bit and found a few things I remembered seeing online before, some things I'd never seen, and even remembered a conversation I had a few years ago:

* Former Republican Congressman Ron Paul had a controversial newsletter published in his name. He vehemently denied writing the worst passages, but obviously people who liked Ron Paul wrote them. In one article, about rising crime rates among black Americans, you can find this gem:

“... even in my little town of Lake Jackson, Texas, I’ve urged everyone in my family to know how to use a gun in self defense, for the animals are coming.”

Whoa.

* Here's a nice little rhyme about one of the first machine guns, which was instrumental in the European colonization of Africa:

“Whatever happens / We have got / The Maxim Gun / And they have not.”

* In the colonies that would become the United States, European settlers were required by law to own firearms for the specific purpose of fighting off Indians trying to reclaim the lands they'd been driven from.

* Samuel Colt invented his revolver, the weapon that “won the west,” specifically to quell slave rebellions.

https://medium.com/s/story/the-racism-driving-american-gun-culture-f24aba50cd88

* Finally, a few years ago I was talking to a neighbor in Texas who is a serious gun enthusiast. In a discussion about America's problems, he casually brought up all the many millions of Americans who, in his view, "sit around smoking crack and cashing welfare checks all day."

I didn't ask, but I'm pretty sure he meant black people ...

Seen through these examples, it's pretty easy to understand how a racist fear of non-white people would drive many to embrace guns, thinking they needed them to defend themselves against the overblown "threat" of non-white violent crime.

by Guest Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:09 pm

The link has to the dumbest reasoning I have ever read
The view to have merit would have to be universal. When its based on one country

I deplore poor sociology, when claiming to use sicnece.

This is the worst ignorance. When what it is really claiming is a culture within the US

The problem in the US is one single factor.

Relative poverty.

You hold a view born from you being in the south.

The US has never gotten over the view to defend itself from tyanny, when it stould in opposition to this when the British taxed the american people. On top of this you have how the US people fought many localised land wars. The texan wars to name a few. It is based off these conflicts that is why Americans hold dear a view to gun rights. It is why I think its also idioctic. But that article to link racism to this, has to be as fuckwitted as i have ever read

You are sure he meant black people?
Many embraced guns for crime, which led to more people to buy guns to protect themselves. The US has a history of organised crime, which many ethnic groupos were a p[art of.

That article has to the dumnbest load of bullshit I have ever read. Its not racism that drives people to own guns. If it was, then we see a reduction with civil rights. As are you seriouly equating how the majority of US citizens own guns, is based on a racist mindset?

You fucking illiberals, are a so utterly stupid. You look to place false issues to problems. Which if truth being told, is what is wrong with the left today. The problem has always been stemed from the war of independence.

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:10 pm

Doesn't seem that you read the post very thoroughly, Didge. It's not just about America, for one thing.

by Guest Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:12 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:Doesn't seem that you read the post very thoroughly, Didge. It's not just about America, for one thing.

Oh I did read and laugh at its stupidity

So how in many african coiuntries where access to guns and violence has to be down to racism?

How does this pan out with countries like Malta with gun onwership?

Seriously you really are a gullible numpty

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:18 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Doesn't seem that you read the post very thoroughly, Didge. It's not just about America, for one thing.

Oh I did read and laugh at its stupidity

So how in many african coiuntries where access to guns and violence has to be down to racism?

How does this pan out with countries like Malta with gun onwership?

Seriously you really are a gullible numpty

Is everything okay? You seem irritable tonight.

by Guest Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:21 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Oh I did read and laugh at its stupidity

So how in many african coiuntries where access to guns and violence has to be down to racism?

How does this pan out with countries like Malta with gun onwership?

Seriously you really are a gullible numpty

Is everything okay? You seem irritable tonight.

Absolutely fine mate. Just klaughing at how you suckered into a very poor article, which in reality has no real idea of gun ownership.
Which for the majority of people is born out pof a view to protect. For people to claim racism,. Is along the limnes of Quills self flagellation
I am against the gun laws in the US and think they should be stricter, but when someone writes the most idioctic article as this is. Claiming a link to racims and gun ownership. I simple sigh and disapir at how fucking stupid Liberals are beoming

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:25 pm

So you think there are no valid points in any of that?

by Guest Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:31 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:So you think there are no valid points in any of that?

Based on its premise? No

I mean most of the article was trying to find links to the NRA

The article was pure idiocy and never gets to the heart of the matter of why with high crime rates and relative poverty, you will always see levels of buying guns. I am sure the NRA have clearly manipulated people through adds to buty guns, but a view on racism?

Like I said it actullau centers on US history and not universally wityh access to guns world wide

Gus have been in existance for centuries. It would be like claiming access to knives is also down to racism

Its utterly fucking absurd

by Ben Reilly Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:34 pm

Very well then, but I disagree.

by eddie Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:39 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Oh I did read and laugh at its stupidity

So how in many african coiuntries where access to guns and violence has to be down to racism?

How does this pan out with countries like Malta with gun onwership?

Seriously you really are a gullible numpty

Is everything okay? You seem irritable tonight.

Absolutely fine mate. Just klaughing at how you suckered into a very poor article, which in reality has no real idea of gun ownership.
Which for the majority of people is born out pof a view to protect. For people to claim racism,. Is along the limnes of Quills self flagellation
I am against the gun laws in the US and think they should be stricter, but when someone writes the most idioctic article as this is. Claiming a link to racims and gun ownership. I simple sigh and disapir at how fucking stupid Liberals are beoming

“Absolutely fine mate. Just klaughing at how you suckered into a very poor article,”

Nobody, who ends up debating and answering with your passion, is “laughing”, are they?
You’re not laughing. You’re irritated.

by Guest Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:44 pm

eddie wrote:
phildidge wrote:

Absolutely fine mate. Just klaughing at how you suckered into a very poor article, which in reality has no real idea of gun ownership.
Which for the majority of people is born out pof a view to protect. For people to claim racism,. Is along the limnes of Quills self flagellation
I am against the gun laws in the US and think they should be stricter, but when someone writes the most idioctic article as this is. Claiming a link to racims and gun ownership. I simple sigh and disapir at how fucking stupid Liberals are beoming

“Absolutely fine mate. Just klaughing at how you suckered into a very poor article,”

Nobody, who ends up debating and answering with your passion, is “laughing”, are they?
You’re not laughing. You’re irritated.

So now you are an expert in phschology lol?

The only thing I see here is a wife standing up for her husband where she is irritated at my answers

I mean did you tak on any of my points or jump in with no due care here and again try to demean me here Eddie?

Opps

I dont care, the pair of you have lost your way and are so closed minded these days the pair of you never listen much these days

I am laughing at the pair of you constantly act like a double act because one is taken to task. Its noble it proves the undying love you have for each other but it also proves how silly you both can be

by eddie Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:45 pm

No. I just pointed out that anyone who is passionately debating, isn’t laughing.

Never mind.

by Guest Mon Oct 28, 2019 9:50 pm

eddie wrote: No. I just pointed out that anyone who is passionately debating, isn’t laughing.

Never mind.

Based on what reasoning?

many people laugh including you.
You now claim people cannot laugh when being passionate within a debate.
What you are claiming is a standard to how people should be
You basically are dyifying your beliefs to a standard. Just like most religious idiots do

by eddie Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:45 pm

So I’m religious now? Boy, but you do like to move the goalposts.

I bet you’re laughing up a storm right now!

by Maddog Tue Oct 29, 2019 1:26 am

I think there's probably a little truth to that on both ends of the spectrum.

The typical NRA member isn't racist. Some have implicit bias.

by Original Quill Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:57 am

Maddog wrote:

I think there's probably a little truth to that on both ends of the spectrum.

The typical NRA member isn't racist. Some have implicit bias.

No, the NRA is more devious. Based on the activities of Maria Butina, it appears that the NRA was the payment conduit for the Russian government to Republicans in government.

The Russo-Republicans are definitely organized crime of the eastern European sort. I’m sure that the FBI of the loyal sort, is looking into it. We will see after Trump and Barr are arrested.

by JulesV Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:32 am

Do calm down, Didge. Your typo count goes thru the roof when you get excited. It's unpretty to witness. What a Face

by JulesV Tue Oct 29, 2019 10:46 am

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:Doesn't seem that you read the post very thoroughly, Didge. It's not just about America, for one thing.
Oh I did read and laugh at its stupidity

So how in many african coiuntries where access to guns and violence has to be down to racism? Tribalism is a factor in such cases, quite similar to racism, Didge!

How does this pan out with countries like Malta with gun onwership?
Seriously you really are a gullible numpty

phildidge wrote:The link has to the dumbest reasoning I have ever read
The view to have merit would have to be universal. When its based on one country

I deplore poor sociology, when claiming to use sicnece. Sociology is a science in its own right, Didge!

The problem in the US is one single factor.
Relative poverty.
You hold a view born from you being in the south.
……. .

by Guest Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:31 pm

Jules wrote:
phildidge wrote:
Oh I did read and laugh at its stupidity

So how in many african coiuntries where access to guns and violence has to be down to racism? Tribalism is a factor in such cases, quite similar to racism, Didge!

How does this pan out with countries like Malta with gun onwership?
Seriously you really are a gullible numpty

phildidge wrote:The link has to the dumbest reasoning I have ever read
The view to have merit would have to be universal. When its based on one country

I deplore poor sociology, when claiming to use sicnece. Sociology is a science in its own right, Didge!

The problem in the US is one single factor.
Relative poverty.
You hold a view born from you being in the south.
……. .

1. So not down to racism, you claim tribalism. How does that pan out with many Eurpopean countries with high gun ownership and low crimes rates ?
2.No sociology is not a science and neither is phsychology

by Andy Tue Oct 29, 2019 2:45 pm

phildidge wrote:
Jules wrote:

1. So not down to racism, you claim tribalism. How does that pan out with many Eurpopean countries with high gun ownership and low crimes rates ?
2.No sociology is not a science and neither is phsychology

Sociology and psychology may or may not be a science.
What is clear is that you have turned arguing into an art.

by Guest Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:00 pm

Andy wrote:
phildidge wrote:

1. So not down to racism, you claim tribalism. How does that pan out with many Eurpopean countries with high gun ownership and low crimes rates ?
2.No sociology is not a science and neither is phsychology

Sociology and psychology may or may not be a science.
What is clear is that you have turned arguing into an art.

Its not a case of may or may not be
Neither are a science
What is clear is you have jumped into a thread pining for my attention

by Original Quill Tue Oct 29, 2019 4:15 pm

phil wrote:Its not a case of may or may not be
Neither are a science
What is clear is you have jumped into a thread pining for my attention

So you say... Rolling Eyes

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:01 pm

I can't believe Didge is going to pretend that racism doesn't fuel any enthusiasm for guns whatsoever.

It's just an American thing? Okay, fine, I'll concede it's mainly an American thing, since you don't really get the "gun nut" types in countries that have sensible gun laws.

But in my OP, there was this part that Didge obviously didn't read:

* Here's a nice little rhyme about one of the first machine guns, which was instrumental in the European colonization of Africa:

“Whatever happens / We have got / The Maxim Gun / And they have not.”

America didn't colonize Africa, full stop (unless you count Liberia, which was really just a whole weird other thing).

And of course, the New Zealand mosque shooter was a non-American gun nut and definitely racist.

by Guest Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:17 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:I can't believe Didge is going to pretend that racism doesn't fuel any enthusiasm for guns whatsoever.

It's just an American thing? Okay, fine, I'll concede it's mainly an American thing, since you don't really get the "gun nut" types in countries that have sensible gun laws.

But in my OP, there was this part that Didge obviously didn't read:

* Here's a nice little rhyme about one of the first machine guns, which was instrumental in the European colonization of Africa:

“Whatever happens / We have got / The Maxim Gun / And they have not.”

America didn't colonize Africa, full stop (unless you count Liberia, which was really just a whole weird other thing).

And of course, the New Zealand mosque shooter was a non-American gun nut and definitely racist.

Yes some gun owners are racist, but that does not mean there is a strong link through enthusiasm for guns and racism. As claimed by the article

Its also making a poor view onto litterally tens of millions of gun owners. As if many have bought guns from a position of being racist themselves. I imagine many buy for hunting and protection. The later being the strongest reason for gun ownership. Then you have those who are criminally minded

I did read the quote, which you take from the past as your claim? Holy crap on a cracker.

The article was simple left wing drivel, from a position of being anti-gun, to whip up a poor unsubstanciated view towards gun owners

This is not the way to tackle gun ownership in the US by making a slanereous view point towards gun owners. When what you do is present data. Like where there is more guns, there is obviously higher crime rates. If the view had any merit we would be seeing far more racist shootings in the US. Which is certainly not he case

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:29 pm

You know what, Didge? I just thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss and debate. You kind of ruined that, though, with your obsessive need to make other people wrong.

Another thing -- it wasn't one article, it was drawn from several sources, including my own experience.

And the last thing -- racism does indeed drive some people to stock up on guns. Not all, which was the very first sentence I wrote, but some, and I'd add, "political" gun owners in particular.

by eddie Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:30 pm

I don’t know whether it’s fair to stereotype people in this way. It’s like saying that most poor black boys will be more violent than poor white boys, from the same area.

Or maybe that’s a poor example. I don’t know.

by Guest Tue Oct 29, 2019 7:37 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:You know what, Didge? I just thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss and debate. You kind of ruined that, though, with your obsessive need to make other people wrong.

Another thing -- it wasn't one article, it was drawn from several sources, including my own experience.

And the last thing -- racism does indeed drive some people to stock up on guns. Not all, which was the very first sentence I wrote, but some, and I'd add, "political" gun owners in particular.

I dont have an obsessive need
I am highly critical of the of the this
If yoyu do not like that, then its you with the problem here. not me

Laters

by Maddog Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:10 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:I can't believe Didge is going to pretend that racism doesn't fuel any enthusiasm for guns whatsoever.

It's just an American thing? Okay, fine, I'll concede it's mainly an American thing, since you don't really get the "gun nut" types in countries that have sensible gun laws.

But in my OP, there was this part that Didge obviously didn't read:

* Here's a nice little rhyme about one of the first machine guns, which was instrumental in the European colonization of Africa:

“Whatever happens / We have got / The Maxim Gun / And they have not.”

America didn't colonize Africa, full stop (unless you count Liberia, which was really just a whole weird other thing).

And of course, the New Zealand mosque shooter was a non-American gun nut and definitely racist.

Racism doesn't fuel enthusiasm for guns. Guns are often owned by people of a more conservative mindset. People of a more conservative mindset often have biases. Biases are not racism.

You are confusing causation with correlation.

I would imagine NASCAR fans own more guns than ballet fans. That doesn't mean watching NASCAR fuels enthusiasm for guns.

by eddie Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:44 pm

eddie wrote:I don’t know whether it’s fair to stereotype people in this way. It’s like saying that most poor black boys will be more violent than poor white boys, from the same area.

Or maybe that’s a poor example. I don’t know.

Don’t know if anyone saw this.... The link between gun 'enthusiasm' and racism is strong 2190311264

by Maddog Tue Oct 29, 2019 8:59 pm

eddie wrote:
eddie wrote:I don’t know whether it’s fair to stereotype people in this way. It’s like saying that most poor black boys will be more violent than poor white boys, from the same area.

Or maybe that’s a poor example. I don’t know.

Don’t know if anyone saw this....

I saw it.

Sometimes when the boys are fighting they miss stuff. Cool

So what you're saying is blackness doesn't lead to violence, correct? Wink

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:25 pm

phildidge wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:You know what, Didge? I just thought it would be an interesting topic to discuss and debate. You kind of ruined that, though, with your obsessive need to make other people wrong.

Another thing -- it wasn't one article, it was drawn from several sources, including my own experience.

And the last thing -- racism does indeed drive some people to stock up on guns. Not all, which was the very first sentence I wrote, but some, and I'd add, "political" gun owners in particular.

I dont have an obsessive need
I am highly critical of the of the this
If yoyu do not like that, then its you with the problem here. not me

Laters

"of the of the this"

Yep.

by Guest Tue Oct 29, 2019 9:31 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I can't believe Didge is going to pretend that racism doesn't fuel any enthusiasm for guns whatsoever.

It's just an American thing? Okay, fine, I'll concede it's mainly an American thing, since you don't really get the "gun nut" types in countries that have sensible gun laws.

But in my OP, there was this part that Didge obviously didn't read:

* Here's a nice little rhyme about one of the first machine guns, which was instrumental in the European colonization of Africa:

“Whatever happens / We have got / The Maxim Gun / And they have not.”

America didn't colonize Africa, full stop (unless you count Liberia, which was really just a whole weird other thing).

And of course, the New Zealand mosque shooter was a non-American gun nut and definitely racist.

Racism doesn't fuel enthusiasm for guns. Guns are often owned by people of a more conservative mindset. People of a more conservative mindset often have biases. Biases are not racism.

You are confusing causation with correlation.

I would imagine NASCAR fans own more guns than ballet fans. That doesn't mean watching NASCAR fuels enthusiasm for guns.

+1

by Ben Reilly Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:22 pm

phildidge wrote:
Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I can't believe Didge is going to pretend that racism doesn't fuel any enthusiasm for guns whatsoever.

It's just an American thing? Okay, fine, I'll concede it's mainly an American thing, since you don't really get the "gun nut" types in countries that have sensible gun laws.

But in my OP, there was this part that Didge obviously didn't read:

* Here's a nice little rhyme about one of the first machine guns, which was instrumental in the European colonization of Africa:

“Whatever happens / We have got / The Maxim Gun / And they have not.”

America didn't colonize Africa, full stop (unless you count Liberia, which was really just a whole weird other thing).

And of course, the New Zealand mosque shooter was a non-American gun nut and definitely racist.

Racism doesn't fuel enthusiasm for guns. Guns are often owned by people of a more conservative mindset. People of a more conservative mindset often have biases. Biases are not racism.

You are confusing causation with correlation.

I would imagine NASCAR fans own more guns than ballet fans. That doesn't mean watching NASCAR fuels enthusiasm for guns.

+1

I never said it was causation. I'm totally open to the idea that it's correlation. Don't twist my words.

That said, do you not think some people buy a lot of guns because they're afraid of non-white people?

by Original Quill Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:27 pm

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I can't believe Didge is going to pretend that racism doesn't fuel any enthusiasm for guns whatsoever.

It's just an American thing? Okay, fine, I'll concede it's mainly an American thing, since you don't really get the "gun nut" types in countries that have sensible gun laws.

But in my OP, there was this part that Didge obviously didn't read:

* Here's a nice little rhyme about one of the first machine guns, which was instrumental in the European colonization of Africa:

“Whatever happens / We have got / The Maxim Gun / And they have not.”

America didn't colonize Africa, full stop (unless you count Liberia, which was really just a whole weird other thing).

And of course, the New Zealand mosque shooter was a non-American gun nut and definitely racist.

Racism doesn't fuel enthusiasm for guns. Guns are often owned by people of a more conservative mindset. People of a more conservative mindset often have biases. Biases are not racism.

You are confusing causation with correlation.

I would imagine NASCAR fans own more guns than ballet fans. That doesn't mean watching NASCAR fuels enthusiasm for guns.

It depends on the coefficients of the correlation. A regression analysis might well find that enthusiasm for guns does indeed regress into being a NASCAR fan, and that both regress into a propensity for loud noises and ostentatious displays.

It depends on the certainty. Does being a person regress into being born. Undoubtedly. That is because we have never known a person that was not born. The coefficient of the regression is therefore 1.0.

by Guest Tue Oct 29, 2019 11:43 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

+1

I never said it was causation. I'm totally open to the idea that it's correlation. Don't twist my words.

That said, do you not think some people buy a lot of guns because they're afraid of non-white people?

Seriously, WTF?
How is the + symbol and the number 1 twisting your words?

by Original Quill Wed Oct 30, 2019 2:59 am

Causation is a metaphysical concept. It can only be established by frequency of antecedent and subsequent. And if you don't buy that, you don't buy empiricism. Because one following another, is the observable (empirical) proof.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc, is the only logic, and frequency is the only proof.

by Maddog Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:33 pm

Ben Reilly wrote:
phildidge wrote:

+1

I never said it was causation. I'm totally open to the idea that it's correlation. Don't twist my words.

That said, do you not think some people buy a lot of guns because they're afraid of non-white people?

Would you say the same about black folks who are pretty well armed?

There are a myriad of reasons why people.own a lot of guns. Fear might be one of them and I guess from that group, some might be afraid of people that are of a.different race.

The people I know with dozens of guns just collect them. Your stereotypical racist living in a mobile home probably has one shitty shotgun.

by Andy Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:Causation is a metaphysical concept. It can only be established by frequency of antecedent and subsequent. And if you don't buy that, you don't buy empiricism. Because one following another, is the observable (empirical) proof.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc, is the only logic, and frequency is the only proof.

That will baffle Didge, as it did me, Quill.

by JulesV Wed Oct 30, 2019 3:49 pm

phildidge wrote:

1. So not down to racism, you claim tribalism. How does that pan out with many Eurpopean countries with high gun ownership and low crimes rates ?
2.No sociology is not a science and neither is phsychology

1. Fair point but tribalism has clear parallels with racism. When one group regards another as being unequal and discriminates against it and commits atrocities, even genocide.

2. Remember the immortal words of Maureen Lipman in the 80's BT ads - "you did a subject that contains an ology (sociology)? you're a scientist!" The link between gun 'enthusiasm' and racism is strong 3489511464

The link between gun 'enthusiasm' and racism is strong 3489511464

by JulesV Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:03 pm

OK to be serious, sociology is obviously not a classical science, it contains no quantum physics, molecular biology, etc.

However it's a social science. It uses scientific methods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology
"it uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis"

Let's agree to disagree, Didge. Smile

by Original Quill Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:24 pm

Andy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Causation is a metaphysical concept. It can only be established by frequency of antecedent and subsequent. And if you don't buy that, you don't buy empiricism. Because one following another, is the observable (empirical) proof.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc, is the only logic, and frequency is the only proof.
That will baffle Didge, as it did me, Quill.

Causation implies a motive. It personifies matter, which is the most basic manifestation of it. Say, for example, two billiard balls. They are two bodies of mass, and when in contact their motion (force) is transferred.

How do we know? We can't ask them: did you mean to cause that effect? They are not persons. The only way we know anything is through observation. But one observation would not yield a generalization, because you can't generalize from a specific. You must conduct the test over and over, and the plurality of tests confirms the generalization.

And what is this called? It's called correlation. The only thing you can ever show is the correlation. Forget causation...it is a metaphysical concept.

The link between gun 'enthusiasm' and racism is strong Correlation-vs-causation

The link between gun 'enthusiasm' and racism is strong Correlation-vs-causation

Amplitude wrote:Causal relationships don’t happen by accident.

It might be tempting to associate two variables as “cause and effect.” But doing so without confirming causality in a robust analysis can lead to a false positive, where a causal relationship seems to exist, but actually isn’t there. This can occur if you don’t extensively test the relationship between a dependent and an independent variable.https://amplitude.com/blog/2017/01/19/causation-correlation

The only way to really establish causation is to ask the causer, did you intend that effect? Then you must hope he tells the truth. Causal relationships are intentional (remember: "Causal relationships don’t happen by accident.") Only a conscious agent can create a causal relationship. If you don't have a truthful, conscious agent, you are only working with correlations.

by Guest Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:11 pm

Andy wrote:
Original Quill wrote:Causation is a metaphysical concept. It can only be established by frequency of antecedent and subsequent. And if you don't buy that, you don't buy empiricism. Because one following another, is the observable (empirical) proof.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc, is the only logic, and frequency is the only proof.
That will baffle Didge, as it did me, Quill.

Hardly, when there is 3 concepts for causation.
Quill only names one
The reality is Andy this is my field of which leaves Quill looking woeful
Maybe you should ask why he omitted the other two here?
He goes off metaphysical, when there is also scienitifc and psychological?
Or are you too dumb to even know this?

Hence Quill is not open to many factors and possibilities
He has a tunnel vision approach and why he buys into the racist concept that Ben presents

by Guest Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:17 pm

Jules wrote:
phildidge wrote:

1. So not down to racism, you claim tribalism. How does that pan out with many Eurpopean countries with high gun ownership and low crimes rates ?
2.No sociology is not a science and neither is phsychology

1. Fair point but tribalism has clear parallels with racism. When one group regards another as being unequal and discriminates against it and commits atrocities, even genocide.

2. Remember the immortal words of Maureen Lipman in the 80's BT ads - "you did a subject that contains an ology (sociology)? you're a scientist!"

You can tribalistic and have no bases in racism. Unless of coure you claim all indigenous rights are based in racism?
Want to rethink your ignorance here Jules?

So where is the parallel? Racism is a unique concept born from ignorance, that was nationalistic in nature, which combined many tribal groups to form a national idea. You simple are that ignorant you have no idea what you are talking about because how could it bring about the formation of many tribes together, that were seperate in the first place. The idenity was not tribal but through a different idenity. Again a nationalistic one

So yes tribes can be genocidal, but where does racism stem from. Even tribal groups would not consider wiping out others they do not see as part of their tribe but based on poor racist beliefs around unscientific notions around races.

by Guest Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:18 pm

Jules wrote:OK to be serious, sociology is obviously not a classical science, it contains no quantum physics, molecular biology, etc.

However it's a social science. It uses scientific methods. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology
"it uses various methods of empirical investigation and critical analysis"

Let's agree to disagree, Didge.

http://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/sociology/5-objections-against-sociology-being-called-a-science-1883-words/8494

by Guest Wed Oct 30, 2019 8:28 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Andy wrote:
That will baffle Didge, as it did me, Quill.

The only way to really establish causation is to ask the causer, did you intend that effect? Then you must hope he tells the truth. Causal relationships are intentional (remember: "Causal relationships don’t happen by accident.") Only a conscious agent can create a causal relationship. If you don't have a truthful, conscious agent, you are only working with correlations.

And the above shows that Quill has abolsutely no comprehension clearly of evolution
Which does not require a cauastion and it also proves quill have no basic understanding of science
Humans never intended that their effect of learning to stand upright, would garner them an advantage in intelligence
Thus it did, and with also the ability to hunt, cause a better ability with corrdinated control. Thus enlarging their brain capacity and thinking
No early humans could have concieved of this and why Quill argues like a lame idiotic lawyer
He has no idea of what scientific cauastion is

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00084.x

by Andy Wed Oct 30, 2019 10:49 pm

We all KNOW you are the cleverest man not only in forum life , but in the whole world.
You are the world expert on every subject we discuss. Because you always say you are righand everyone else is wrong. I wonder how a brain ( and ego) as big as yours is fits inside your head .

by 'Wolfie Thu Oct 31, 2019 12:13 am

Maddog wrote:
Ben Reilly wrote:I can't believe Didge is going to pretend that racism doesn't fuel any enthusiasm for guns whatsoever.

It's just an American thing? Okay, fine, I'll concede it's mainly an American thing, since you don't really get the "gun nut" types in countries that have sensible gun laws.

But in my OP, there was this part that Didge obviously didn't read:

* Here's a nice little rhyme about one of the first machine guns, which was instrumental in the European colonization of Africa:

“Whatever happens / We have got / The Maxim Gun / And they have not.”

America didn't colonize Africa, full stop (unless you count Liberia, which was really just a whole weird other thing).

And of course, the New Zealand mosque shooter was a non-American gun nut and definitely racist.

Racism doesn't fuel enthusiasm for guns. Guns are often owned by people of a more conservative mindset. People of a more conservative mindset often have biases. Biases are not racism.

You are confusing causation with correlation.

I would imagine NASCAR fans own more guns than ballet fans. That doesn't mean watching NASCAR fuels enthusiasm for guns.
.

Watching NASCAR might not fuel enthusiasm for guns..

What if the inverse were true, though -- an enthusiasm for guns may well fuel that persons desire to favour NASCAR, demolition derbies and 'Monster Truck' racing -- ahead of the F1, Indy Cars, Touring/Supercars, Sports Cars or offroad Rallying classes ?

by Original Quill Thu Oct 31, 2019 3:42 pm

'Wolfie wrote:
Maddog wrote:

Racism doesn't fuel enthusiasm for guns. Guns are often owned by people of a more conservative mindset. People of a more conservative mindset often have biases. Biases are not racism.

You are confusing causation with correlation.

I would imagine NASCAR fans own more guns than ballet fans. That doesn't mean watching NASCAR fuels enthusiasm for guns.
.

Watching NASCAR might not fuel enthusiasm for guns..

What if the inverse were true, though -- an enthusiasm for guns may well fuel that persons desire to favour NASCAR, demolition derbies and 'Monster Truck' racing -- ahead of the F1, Indy Cars, Touring/Supercars, Sports Cars or offroad Rallying classes ?

I have a third theory: feelings of inadequacy in whites causes both racism, and love of guns. Men who feel inadequate think that black men are out for their women. https://thegrio.com/2015/07/02/white-supremacists-myth-black-people/
The same men feel they are inadequate in hand-to-hand conflict, and want to improve their odds by way of guns. Hence:

Inadequacy >> racism; and
Inadequacy >> need for guns.

There is no causal relation between racism and guns. But both are dependent effects of the inadequacy of white males.

by Ben Reilly Thu Oct 31, 2019 9:31 pm

Note: I said gun enthusiasm, which isn't the same as gun ownership. Until quite recently I'd been a gun owner for years, but I had no enthusiasm for guns.

Sure, some gun enthusiasts just really geek out over guns and it's their hobby. I'm not calling all of them racists.

However, I do think that racism, particularly of the conspiratorial ("white displacement" theory) or political variety, fuels many people's gun enthusiasm.

by Original Quill Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:36 pm

Ben wrote:Note: I said gun enthusiasm, which isn't the same as gun ownership.

It's just further along the same scale. It's called a Guttman Scale. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guttman_scale

One desires a gun (1), one obtains and owns a gun (2), and then one becomes an enthusiast (3). I suppose one could be an enthusiast before obtaining the gun, but that's just to rearrange the ordinal variables.

See, Guttman, L. "A basis for scaling qualitative data," American Sociological Review, 9, 139–150 (1944).

by Sponsored content