Random Acts Of Tattoo Project
Great news - Southside Tattoo is thrilled to share that GoFundMe Studios found our story and created a documentary about Shane Johnson, a man we covered tattoos for. Please take a moment to watch it below so you can see more deeply into the Random Acts of Tattoo Project. We appreciate your sharing this video and this campaign - we hope to keep raising funds so we can continue to play a part in incredible stories of transformation like Shane's. What started as a small gesture to help our community went world wide! Our goal was to help ex gang members in Baltimore cover their gang and racist tattoos so that they could get rid of the constant reminder of a past life. We have gotten hundreds of inquiries about work, some near, some far. We want to help as many people as possible, but know there are costs for supplies and travel.
Our goal is to form a non profit collective of artists from all over the world and get people the services that they need for free! We have had an overwhelming request asking where donations could be made. What are donations used for? The time and materials it takes to do cover up tattoos are generously donated by each participating tattoo artist, but there are some tattoos that can't/shouldn't be covered up (facial tattoos for example), and this is where donations come in. 150-$500: We partner with local tattoo removal services all over the country, and this amount pays for one session of laser tattoo removal for someone wanting a fresh start. 100,000: This amount would pay for a laser removal machine. We'd love to buy one of our own and will continue fundraising for food it! Every penny is appreciated. Thanks for spreading the love ♡ Sometimes people make bad choices, and sometimes people change. We, at Southside Tattoo would like to make a difference. WE WILL COVER IT FOR FREE. We believe that there is enough hate in this world and we want to make a difference. Please call the shop and set up a consultation with any of our artists. This data w as writt en by GSA Con tent Generator Demoversion.
Epistemic status: I think I probably wrung the right conclusions out of this evidence, but this isn’t the only line of evidence bearing on the broader gun control issue and all I can say is what it’s consistent with. From a Vox article on America’s Gun Problem, Explained: "On Wednesday, it happened again: There was a mass shooting - this time, in San Bernardino, California. Then it goes on to say that "more guns mean more gun deaths, period. The research on this is overwhelmingly clear. …then uses the graph as a lead in to talk about active shooter situations, gun-homicide relationships, and outrage over gun massacres. Did you notice that the axis of this graph says "gun deaths", and that this is a totally different thing from gun murders? Gun deaths are a combined measure of gun homicides and gun suicides. Here is a graph of guns vs. And here is a graph of guns vs. The relationship between gun ownership and homicide is weak (and snacks appears negative), the relationship between gun ownership and suicide is strong and positive.
The entire effect Vox highlights in their graph is due to gun suicides, but they are using it to imply conclusions about gun homicides. This is why you shouldn’t make a category combining two unlike things. I am not the first person to notice this. The Washington Examiner makes the same criticism of Vox’s statistics that I do. And Robert VerBruggen of National Review does the same analysis decomposing gun deaths into suicides and homicides, and like me finds no correlation with homicides. German Lopez of Vox responds here. He argues that VerBruggen can’t just do a raw uncontrolled correlation of state gun ownership with state murder rates without adjusting for confounders. This is true, although given that Vox has done this time and time again for months on end and all VerBruggen is doing is correctly pointing out a flaw in their methods, it feels kind of like an isolated demand for rigor. So let’s look at the more-carefully-controlled studies.
Lopez suggests the ones at the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, which has done several statistical analyses of gun violence. We start with MA&H 2002. This study does indeed conclude that higher gun ownership rates are correlated with higher murder rates after adjusting for confounders. But suspiciously, it in fact finds that higher gun ownership rates are correlated with higher murder rates even before adjusting for confounders, something that we already found wasn’t true! Furthermore, even after adjusting for confounders it finds in several age categories that higher gun ownership rates are correlated with higher non-gun homicide rates (eg the rates at which people are murdered by knives or crowbars or whatever) at p less than 0.001. This is really suspicious! Unless guns are exerting some kind of malign pro-murder influence that makes people commit more knife murders, snackdeals.shop some sort of confounding influence has remained. The study gets its murder rate numbers from the National Center for Health Statistics, which seems like a trustworthy source.
