Aperiomics is a system I thought of in 1989, I’ve been working on it mainly privately since then but am now starting to publish it. More detailed of it are found at Aperiomics.org, it is based on 12 mathematical principles of chaos and randomness that combine to explain events in war, economics, crime, sociology, evolution, etc.
People are welcome to read, they can correspond with me at email@example.com.
Saturday, March 2, 2013
What Researchers Learned About Gun Violence Before Congress Killed Funding - ProPublica
So what were you were able to find before funding got cut off?
of the critical studies that we supported was looking at the question
of whether having a firearm in your home protects you or puts you at
increased risk. This was a very important question because people who
want to sell more guns say that having a gun in your home is the way to
protect your family.
the research showed was not only did having a firearm in your home not
protect you, but it hugely increased the risk that someone in your
family would die from a firearm homicide. It increased the risk almost
300 percent, almost three times as high.
I-O police are more efficient at dispensing justice than people doing it themselves, when I-O is weak this creates more Oy-R and Y-Ro crimes. For example Oy thieves might try to secretly break into R people's homes, both are depending on being quiet and deceptive to gain or avoid losing assets. This increases with weak O policing and allowing firearms can cause both to escalate their violence, this is like escalating weapons exponentially in the cold war. there are can also be team based weapons in Y-Ro where gangs can use them, also Ro neighborhoods might have weapons with neighborhoods watch like vigilantes. There is more chance of injustices occurring here too when criminals are punished too harshly or were innocent.
also showed that the risk that someone in your home would commit
suicide went up. It went up five-fold if you had a gun in the home.
These are huge, huge risks, and to just put that in perspective, we look
at a risk that someone might get a heart attack or that they might get a
certain type of cancer, and if that risk might be 20 percent greater,
that may be enough to ban a certain drug or a certain product.
in this case, we're talking about a risk not 20 percent, not 100
percent, not 200 percent, but almost 300 percent or 500 percent. These
are huge, huge risks.
understand there was also an effort to collect data on gun violence
through something called the Firearm Injury Surveillance System. What
did that involve?
We were collecting information to answer the question of who, what, where, when, and how did shootings occur?
were finding that most homicides occur between people who know each
other, people who are acquaintances or might be doing business together
or might be living together. They're not stranger-on-stranger shootings.
They're not mostly home intrusions.
also found that there were a lot of firearm suicides, and in fact most
firearm deaths are suicides. There were a lot of young people who were
impulsive who were using guns to commit suicide.