|
about 30 ppl killed in YET ANOTHER shooting (pg. 32)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jon_Snow |
 |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Free Market Economics is death. |
Indeed, the IMF has already performed a complete audit of the whole US financial system, something which they have only previously done to broke third world nations.
Economist Marc Faber calls the U.S. a “failed state“. Indeed, we no longer have a free market economy … we have fascism, communist style socialism, kleptocracy, oligarchy or banana republic style corruption.
America is the new 'South America': Descent to Lawlessness.
Vote for revenge. Planet of the Apes. |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
I have no mercy for you, libtards.
In probability theory and statistics, the Poisson distribution is a discrete probability distribution that expresses the probability of a given number of events occurring in a fixed interval of time and/or space if these events occur with a known average rate and independently of the time since the last event.[1] The Poisson distribution can also be used for the number of events in other specified intervals such as distance, area or volume.
source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_distribution
| quote: | study aforementioned suggests that there is no evidence of clustering beyond what you would expect from a random process. In other words, the occurrences of mass shootings from 1982-2012 are consistent with the assumption that shootings are independent events, occurring at an average rate of 2 per year. However, a p-value of 0.18 is not particularly high, and if we see a few more years as extreme as 2012, it’s likely that this will rule out the hypothesis that mass shootings are random events.
What do I conclude from this? If mass shootings are really occurring at random, then this suggests that they are extreme, hard-to-predict events, and are perhaps not the most relevant measure of the overall harm caused by gun violence. |
http://www.empiricalzeal.com/2012/1...the-us-numbers/ |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lagrangian
Indeed, the IMF has already performed a complete audit of the whole US financial system, something which they have only previously done to broke third world nations.
Economist Marc Faber calls the U.S. a “failed state“. Indeed, we no longer have a free market economy … we have fascism, communist style socialism, kleptocracy, oligarchy or banana republic style corruption.
America is the new 'South America': Descent to Lawlessness.
Vote for revenge. Planet of the Apes. |
IMF has grown into a fundamentally corrupt organization, populated by stalwart Friedmanites, that has Keynes rolling over in his grave.
Sociopathic, indeed. |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lagrangian
perhaps. |
The IMF, in your citation, is externalizing blame for policies they advocate for. There is no "perhaps, maybe, possibility, et al" about it. They are literally affirming the consequence for years of adherence to Free Market doctrines by listing everything that has come about as a result of adherence to Free Market doctrines. Apart from communist style socialism (which I have a distinct impression resembles totalitarianism as far as you're concerned), your list of social evils has occurred as the result of neoliberal economics being implemented in South America and elsewhere.
Definitely. |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
 |
|
|
| EddieZilker |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lagrangian
... |
Seems you lost your uncharacteristic intellectual zeal, once again recoiling from any conversation in which you might be expected to back up your arguments. |
|
|
| Lagrangian |
| quote: | Originally posted by EddieZilker
Seems you lost your uncharacteristic intellectual zeal, once again recoiling from any conversation in which you might be expected to back up your arguments. |
Not really, just taking care of stuff. Back shortly. |
|
|
| Nrg2Nfinit |
Free market economics is great if you have money and are responsible with your debts.
unfortunately that exempts 99% of people |
|
|
| Kylle |
Someone mind explaining how allowing assault rifles creates a "more equitable society", when 1) most people probably can't afford an assault rifle in the first place and 2) the rich can afford to finance small armies?
Seems to me like the "more equitable society" is created by taking assault rifles out of everyone's hands, not just the hands of people who can't afford them. |
|
|
| Joz |
The other day I was involved in a discussion of the Australian gun ban of 1996. With an actual Australian who knows what that law says. To quote:
| quote: | Civilians don't get to own semi-automatic rifles, semi-automatic handguns or pump-action handguns.
Other handguns are available to target shooters under strict conditions: ongoing membership of a registered club after a 6 month probationary period using the club's guns; background checks and licence renewal; and the type of handgun you're allowed to buy depends on the length of your experience and the type of competitions you participate in.
Other rifles may be owned under licence (and with background checks) if you can demonstrate a "Genuine Reason" (or "Genuine Need" for some categories of rifle). For example, you're a farmer and you need to be able to shoot foxes on your property. The belief that a gun will help you protect yourself against a hypothetical future attacker is not accepted as a genuine need.
In some states if you're a collector of various weapons you're allowed to own them (subject to license and storage conditions) provided they are rendered permanently inoperable.
Whatever sort of gun you want, you have to complete an accredited training course in gun safety before you can get a licence. |
| quote: | | The biggest of the gun laws in question is] the National Firearms Agreement, which passed in May 1996 (just over two weeks after the Port Arthur massacre). The agreement included a 12 month amnesty and buy-back period: over 600,000 guns banned under the agreement were handed in by their owners in exchange for compensation, and destroyed. |
| quote: | | My main memory [of the discussion prior to passing that law] was that when 35 people were murdered in a spree killing the general public response was something like "holy this is appalling! How do we stop this from ever happening again?" Plus (sorry) a lot of "you expect this sort of thing in America but we can't let it happen here". |
| quote: | Hey, I found the answer to your question about the aims of the 1996 gun control laws. They were, in fact, aimed at preventing mass shooting incidents. In the decade prior we'd had 121 people die in 11 spree killings. Port Arthur was the biggest and the last straw.
The fact that we've seen a decline in overall homicide, gun homicide specifically, and firearm suicides since then has been a happy bonus. |
| quote: | | There have not [been any mass murders since that law went into effect]. The only occasions where 3 or more people have been killed in one incident have been a few domestic cases and family murder/suicides. |
The bit I think most relevant to Eddie's remarks is bolded. |
|
|
|
|
