You are reading this on a computer, and you accessed it from the Internet, an “inter”-connection of multiple “networks”. The networking devices which implement the connections within and between networks are called “routers”.
The routers use a routing table to determine which is the best of its many inter-connected neighbors to which to send each packet it receives. But the full routing table is very large, and a core router can handle many million packets per second, It is too slow to look up the best route for each data packet. So they use a technique call “label switching”.
Speaking very basically, in a “label switching” network the best path between the routers from one source to one destination is determined once, not for each packet in the stream. Then a label is attached to each packet to identify the path. The routers simply look at the label then to determine how to treat each packet. The routers do not have to examine the packet headers and think about how to treat each one individually – its response is predetermined based on the label.
It is much the same with people. You attach a label to someone and that determines how you treat that individual. If you stick “liberal” or “conservative” or any other label on a person, then like packet-switching router you simply respond without thinking about or examining the individual.
For example, perhaps @kimojima assigns a “conservative” label on someone who believes that laws should be made by the elected legislature rather than by nine unelected oligarchs-for-life. Then, automatically without thinking or further examination, @kimojima knows that that person beats her children. That’s the power of labels.
“Analyzing the relationships between some variables based on chronological data in a country is not free from false causation. Every variable might change at the same time, but you cannot easily assume causality among them. It is as vulnerable as using ecological correlations.”
My previous post(you should read before you respond):
“I am not saying more guns means less murders(correlation is not causation). I really don’t think this is the important variable.”
Edit: It is not polite to put words in my mouth “because you assume that…”. Either respond to what I say(read my posts first) or ask me to elaborate on my position.
Stephen Taiwan wrote:
“I really don’t think this[the number of guns] is the important variable.”
Assuming nonexistence of causality is also considered a causal hypothesis. It goes beyond a simple correlation analysis. Why do you assume this nonexistence of causality, even though you do not control for other variables that might influence the relationship between “more guns” and “more gun deaths”. Of course, there are well-known difficulties, such as multicollinearity, you might face in the analysis based on chronological data.
“Assuming nonexistence of causality is also considered causal hypothesis. It is beyond a simple correlation analysis.”
Under what scenario is your assumption true?
“Why do you assume this nonexistence of causality, even though you do not control for other variables that might influence the relationship between “more guns” and “more gun deaths”.”
All the studies posted by both you and I look at CORRELATION. Where do you get CAUSALITY from?
You compared different groups which needs to look at other variables to single out guns as the only cause of differences in gun homicides…VOX did not do that.
I did not compare groups so I don’t need to look at different variables. Even if it did, the variables you listed would increase the amount of gun homicides meaning the problem was not guns, but alcohol etc.
(again, understand your own methodology, you are destroying your own argument when you discuss control variables)
“Of course, there is the well-known difficulty you might face in the analysis based on chronological data, such as multicollinearity.”
multicollinearity discuss TWO or more explanatory variables. This doesn’t even apply to my argument of correlation and the fact there is only one explanatory variable that I (and you) are looking at.
Are you just searching for things on the web and copying them without knowing what they mean?
“The background-check rule was introduced to provide information on the gun-buying history of people receiving benefits for mental disability.”
and
“There is no evidence suggesting that those receiving disability benefits from the Social Security Administration are a threat to public safety,” said Congressman Bob Goodlatte."
These are not the same statements so you will have to go look at the actual wording of the law. As you can see disability benefits from SSA MAY contain mental disorders but to not limited to mental disorders.
There is evidence of mental problems with gun violence and this is a place where gun laws would help, but if it effects EVERYONE receiving SSA benefits I would change the law.
You really have to get to the law and wording to understand what is going on because politicians and news tell a lot of half-truths. The intention of a law and execution of a law are not the same thing:
" Comment: Several commenters protested against what they thought would be our evaluation of all Social Security beneficiaries for potential inclusion in the NICS.
Response: The comment reflects a misunderstanding of our proposed rules. We will not evaluate all Social Security beneficiaries for potential inclusion in the NICS. As we indicate in section 421.110(b) of our rules, the beneficiaries whose names we would submit to the NICS must meet five well-defined criteria. The criteria are that the individual must have: (1) Filed a claim based on disability; (2) been determined by us to be disabled based on a finding at step three of our sequential evaluation process that the individual’s impairment(s) meets or medically equals the requirements of one of the Mental Disorders Listings; (3) a primary diagnosis code in our records that is based on a mental impairment; (4) attained age 18, but have not yet attained full retirement age; and (5) benefit payments made through a representative payee because we have found him or her incapable of managing benefit payments. We will not include any beneficiary who does not meet all of those criteria in our reporting to the NICS."
“States providing information on people disqualified from buying guns due to mental illness or domestic violence”
Based on the government agency’s response, I would say the above statement is correct and I would at the present moment would like to keep it this specific portion of the executive action.
“Since some societies are capable of causing more pain than others, ‘caring about’ men and women in society must involve caring about such issues as equalizing opportunity and the sharing in the cultural and material poroducts of society. Utopian politics is adolescent, certainly, but no adulthood that loses such a utopian vision in the process of ageing can be called a real adulthood.”–Richard Sennett
“Anyone can be excused for being conservative when he is eighteen, but no one can be excused for being a conservative when he is forty.”–Richard Sennett