Jump to content

Anastasis

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    28506
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    8

Posts posted by Anastasis

  1. 1 minute ago, woohorn said:
    4 hours ago, DixonHur said:
    Yeah, I can't understand why the Palestinians are so upset.  I mean it's not like someone kicked them out of their land and gave it to their mortal enemy or anything.  What a bunch of snowflakes.

    Next time they win a world war, they can have some say in what happens to the spoils.

    yeah, cause what we desperately need is more people in the middle east who think that their problems can be solved by setting off a world war. 

    • Like 1
  2. 11 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    I wouldn't presume to speak for Hugo, but I'll just throw out "let's at least stop dropping to our knees and blowing them"???

    Is having interactions at the highest levels of the intelligence apparatus to discuss counterterrorist efforts equivalent to taking a load on the face?

  3. Just now, Brian Fantana said:

    Well we might as well do nothing because nothing will work. Fuck a few kid's lives amirite

    There are some steps that we can take that will have the support of the vast majority of gun owners, but people want to talk about Australia instead. 

  4. 4 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

    As far as letting Russians in the United States, it’s appears as an open door policy right now.  What difference does it make if they’re an “official diplomat” or your garden variety spy.  Trump’s properties in Florida are filled with Russians.

    Shit, just recently there was an undisclosed intelligence summit in D.C. with the heads of the FSB, GRU, and SVR.

    And SVR guy is BANNED from entering the United States from the 2014 Ukraine Sanctions.

    Not only did he get in, he got to meet with Pompeo and other top U.S. officials.

    And not a single fuck was given that day.

     

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/world/national-security/russian-spy-chiefs-met-in-washington-with-cia-director-to-discuss-counterterrorism/2018/01/31/0b761976-068b-11e8-94e8-e8b8600ade23_story.html

    Are there any international initiatives that you feel it would be appropriate to work with the Russians on when we have aligned interests?

  5. Just now, Gatorubet said:

    That, and the fact that every keystroke of this conversation is likely being monitored by some government spook software somewhere, who can decide to make my vehicle stop operating with a kill switch via satellite when I tree to flee rather than explain why I replied to a question about how much money I give Russian Intelligence with "Tree Fiddy".

     

     

    repeat gif.

  6. 1 minute ago, Gatorubet said:

    Which is why no rational person or court says that gun ownership for home protection is illegal. It can never be.   Your right to have full auto weapons and Stinger missiles in your house near an airport to fight off the potential thread of the Russian Airforce?  Not so much.

    While the rhetoric unsurprisingly drifts to silly examples of stinger missile and russian invasion, the reality is that the single greatest threat to the civil liberties of the average American is our militarized domestic law enforcement personnel.  

    • Like 1
  7. Just now, Gatorubet said:

    Well, turns out, Heavy6 is not the arbiter of civil liberties. 

    The final arbiter of civil liberties is THIS MOFUCKING AK47 RIGHT HERE!

     

    Joking aside, the ability to defend yourself, with force if necessary, is the last defense one has if their life and liberties are being threatened. 

     

  8. 6 minutes ago, Brian Fantana said:

    Anyone that needs to fire off 10 rounds at a fucking hog needs to put the fucking gun down and go look for a cure for their Parkinson's. I grew up hunting game with bolt-action rifles, and it's my opinion that if you need to hunt with a semi-automatic rifle, you're a fucking pussy. How bah dah?

    how the fuck am I suppose to shoot them out of the helicopter with a bolt action?  answer me that smart guy?

     

    • Like 2
  9. 1 minute ago, Brian Fantana said:

    It's not even good information. It's just "lmao gotcha Palestine was never a country" when everyone already knows that, coupled with Bible (or Torah) thumping bullshit about land endowed by their creator.

    Please, please, get smarter. For your own sake.

    I haven't read that article, but were they able to work in anything about Jesus' landing pad on Temple Mount?  That's usually the best part. 

  10. Not sure why, but this portion of my post above got swallowed up by the spoiler tag

     

    On the specific topic of the definition of mass shooting. Shows that the outcomes is quite sensitive to small variations in defintion, with 2015 estimate ranging from 7-371.

    https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/mass-shootings.html

    And discussion of methodological challenges.

    https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/methodological-challenges-to-identifying-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

  11. For the Nerdz, some links from RAND.

    Overview with nice drill down graphic.

    https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis.html

    wJLL4ck.jpg

     


    Analysis of literature on AWB and mag capacity.

    https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/mass-shootings.html

    full text:

    Effects of Bans on the Sale of Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines on Mass Shootings

    Summary: Evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings is inconclusive.

     

    We identified two studies that examined the effects of bans on the sale of assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and met our inclusion criteria. Both used a two-way fixed-effects model, controlling for both state-specific and year-specific effects, to estimate the effects of state or federal assault weapon bans on mass shooting incidents or casualties.[1]

    Using a Poisson model and data from 1982 through 2011, Gius (2015c) tested whether state assault weapon bans influence public mass shooting fatalities or public mass shooting injuries, controlling for the federal assault weapon ban and state-level variation in demographic, socioeconomic, and criminal justice characteristics. Although the author found a large and statistically significant association between implementation of the federal assault weapon ban and reductions in mass shooting deaths and injuries, the analysis of the federal ban does not meet our criteria for inclusion because the model included an indicator for years prior to and after the federal ban as a control, but there was no comparison group. However, findings showed that stateassault weapon bans had a statistically significant but smaller effect of reducing mass shooting death rates to 55 percent of what would have been expected without the bans, but uncertain effects on mass shooting injuries (see the figure below). This report provided little detail describing variation in the timing of the state bans in relation to the federal ban, and it is unclear whether the estimated effects were confounded by correlation between the state and federal bans. The model did not account for serial correlation in panel data, which can result in large biases in standard errors (Aneja, Donohue, Zhang, 2014).

    Using a linear probability model and data from a later period (1989–2014), Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) estimated the effects of state assault weapon bans on a binary indicator for whether a mass shooting occurred in a given state-year. In contrast to Gius (2015c), Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) did not control for the federal assault weapon ban from 1994 through 2004, but they controlled for a host of other state-level gun policies and for state-level demographic, socioeconomic, and political characteristics. Their findings showed uncertain effects of state assault weapon bans on the probability of a mass shooting incident occurring. However, the effects of gun policies on mass shootings were not the primary focus of Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016), and the authors intended the estimates to serve solely as a robustness check for their main specification (the effects of mass shootings on gun policy). Although the paper provided limited information to use in evaluating the reported statistical models (e.g., on how these policies were coded), it is clear that the analysis used a linear model to predict a dichotomous outcome. Therefore, model assumptions were violated, making confidence intervals (CIs) unreliable.

    The figure below displays the incidence rate ratios (IRRs) and CIs associated with the assault weapon ban policies examined in these studies. We exclude estimates of the federal assault weapon ban from Gius (2015c) because they do not meet our criteria for inclusion.

    Incidence Rate Ratios Associated with the Effect of Assault Weapon Bans on Mass Shootings

    HOW TO READ THIS CHART
     
    Study, by Policy Outcome Measure Effect Size (IRR) [95% CI]  
      0.212.6
    Assault weapon ban Mass shooting    
    Luca, Deepak, & Poliquin (2016)

    We have significant methodological concerns about this study.

    State-year indicator (no political controls) 1.52 [0.60, 2.43]  
    Luca, Deepak, & Poliquin (2016)

    We have significant methodological concerns about this study.

    State-year indicator (political controls) 1.56 [0.63, 2.49]  
    State assault weapon ban Mass shooting    
    Gius (2015c)

    We have significant methodological concerns about this study.

    Deaths 0.55 [0.33, 0.92]  
    Gius (2015c)

    We have significant methodological concerns about this study.

    Injuries 1.35 [0.81, 2.23]  
      0.212.6

    NOTE: IRR values marked with empty circles indicate that we identified concerns with the study's methodology, and these concerns are described in the text above. Filled circles indicate that we identified no significant methodological concerns.

    Conclusions

    We identified two qualifying studies that estimated the effects of state assault weapon bans on different aspects of mass shootings. Gius (2015c) found that these bans significantly reduce mass shooting deaths but have uncertain effects on injuries resulting from mass shootings. Using a similar data set, Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) found uncertain effects of state assault weapon bans on the annual incidence of mass shootings. Based on an assessment of these findings and the relative strengths of these studies, we find inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.

    BANS ON THE SALE OF ASSAULT WEAPONS AND HIGH-CAPACITY MAGAZINES MASS SHOOTINGS

    Notes

    1. The two studies adopted slightly different definitions for mass shooting (see the essay on mass shooting definitions and trends for further detail). Gius (2015c) focused on public mass shootings, which the author defined as incidents resulting in four or more firearm-related fatalities (excluding the offender), where the shooting occurred in a relatively public place, victims were selected indiscriminately, and the shooting was not related to criminal activity. Luca, Deepak, and Poliquin (2016) set the same casualty threshold and also excluded any incident that occurred in connection with criminal activity, but they did not restrict to public settings and excluded all events in which fewer than three of the fatally injured victims were not related to the shooter (e.g., family, romantic partner). Return to content

    References

    • Aneja, Abhay, John J. Donohue III, and Alexandria Zhang, The Impact of Right to Carry Laws and the NRC Report: Lessons for the Empirical Evaluation of Law and Policy, Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Law School, Olin Working Paper No. 461, December 1, 2014. As of May 21, 2017: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2443681
    • Gius, Mark, “The Impact of State and Federal Assault Weapons Bans on Public Mass Shootings,” Applied Economics Letters, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2015c, pp. 281–284.
    • Luca, Michael, Lahotra Deepak, and Christopher Poliquin, The Impact of Mass Shootings on Gun Policy, working paper, Boston, Mass.: Harvard Business School, 2016.

    On the specific topic of the definition of mass shooting. Shows that the outcomes is quite sensitive to small variations in defintion, with 2015 estimate ranging from 7-371.

    https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/mass-shootings.html

    And discussion of methodological challenges.

    https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/supplementary/methodological-challenges-to-identifying-the-effects-of-gun-policies.html

     

  12. 3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

    *I* limited it to 1985 so I could break the data into decades (the last of which is only in its 4th year) around the AWB.

    I don't give a flying fuck what the FBI defines "mass shooting" as.  For the definition of 4+ killings per event (shooter not included), the data are sound.  I have no idea what you mean by "the data were never compiled".  Just because certain law enforcement agencies have not been maintaining a database does not mean that the data do not exist.  Yeesh.

    There is nothing wrong with the data that you presented.  To be able to make conclusions on that data, a sensitivity analysis on the definition of mass shooting is probably warranted, and more sophisticated analytic methods. These data are asking for an interrupted time series analysis, or a difference in differences analysis.  The potential confounders are many. Again, it's interesting data, and deserves further research.  

  13. 5 hours ago, SKJ said:

    Having been something disqualifies an observation.

    I see...

    That's very weak

    No, it doesn't disqualify any observation. I was just being an asshole. 

  14. Just now, Caracara said:

    I didn't like Hillary before the election season,

    Nobody liked Hillary.  The right, the middle, shit even the fucking left. Nor did many internationally. But it was her turn to crash through that glass ceiling with the backing of a captured democrat party apparatus, so batter up. And the GOP was incapable of nominating the only electable adult in the room (Kasich) because they had cultured 8 years of fucking brain damage within their own base, so here we fucking are. And all this shit is Russia's fault, with a side dish of assange and snowden and whatever other nonsense. 

    • Like 3
  15. 4 minutes ago, DixonHur said:

    How is that incriminating?  The DNC (and the RNC, for that matter) can favor any candidate they want...there's nothing illegal or even unethical about that.

    Right, they are private organizations free to tilt the scales as they see fit.  And that is just fine. I mean, they own our democracy, but if you point out this nonsense masquerading as democracy you are a both sider. BTW have you heard about the sham that is Russian elections?

    • Like 2
  16. Yeah, it's all kinda hard to keep track of frankly.  AMZN makes moves that are interpreted to be entered the healthcare space, berkshire, JPM on board. Analysts I hear don't think AMZN represents a serious threat. They shrug it off. Then WMT comes over the top to position as the biggest retail healthcare presence with a insurer with an in house PBM in the fold.

     

    Frankly, I think that the WMT is just a trial balloon. If you hold HUM I would unload it. They'll let CVS/Aetna play out to see if the regulators balk. But this is all total speculation. 

×
×
  • Create New...