Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 1051 of 5179 (686534)
01-02-2013 12:23 PM


I missed out on New Years Eve fireworks (and two people died)
On New Years Eve in Old Sacramento, a bar fight moved from fists to guns and ended up a double homicide with 4 more injured. And they cancelled the midnight fireworks show.
Guns are especially great as self-defense weapons in crowds of people. And when you're in a bar fight. I mean, you have to defend yourself from the guy who wants to punch you. By killing him.

The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.
- Francis Bacon
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity. — Albert Camus
"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.

Replies to this message:
 Message 1054 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:30 PM Rahvin has not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 1052 of 5179 (686536)
01-02-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1035 by xongsmith
01-02-2013 10:39 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
xongsmith writes:
But back to my point of removing obvious outliers - if statistical practice is to be followed, then the USA point must be thrown out of the analysis. But if the USA point is thrown out, then how can the result be used to analyze the USA situation?
Perhaps the graph simply points out the blindingly obvious fact that the USA actually IS an outlier - ie far outside what we'd normally expect in a modern Western democracy.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1035 by xongsmith, posted 01-02-2013 10:39 AM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1053 of 5179 (686537)
01-02-2013 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1050 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 11:57 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Straggler writes:
If you agree that high gun prevalence is related to high homicide rate what exactly are you disagreeing about here?
Crash writes:
As I keep saying, I disagree that the statistical data proves that reducing gun ownership would reduce homicides....
So you agree that high gun prevalence is related to high homicide rate but you don't think reducing the prevalence of guns would reduce the homicide rate?
Forget statistical "proof" - I just want to know if you think that reducing the number of guns would reduce the homicide rate because you seem to be saying contradictory things here.
Crash writes:
...or that the statistical correlation between gun ownership and gun injury is proof that individuals should not ever choose to own a gun.
I haven't seen anyone say that. What I saw people saying was that individuals would be better served considering these statistics than relying on their own subjective feelings about how safe they feel by arming themselves.
Crash writes:
I've made this point surely half a dozen times in the past 10 posts of mine; is there some reason you didn't understand it then?
You seem (to me) to be contradicting yourself with regard to the relation between homicide rate and gun prevalence. You seem (to me) to be arguing a straw man when discussing "proof that individuals should not ever choose to own a gun".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1050 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 11:57 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1055 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:34 PM Straggler has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1054 of 5179 (686539)
01-02-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1051 by Rahvin
01-02-2013 12:23 PM


Re: I missed out on New Years Eve fireworks (and two people died)
Meanwhile, in a world where nobody thinks it matters if criminals push the physical burden of their crimes off onto their victims:
quote:
ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast (AP) Survivors of a stampede in Ivory Coast that killed 61 people, most of them children and teenagers, after a New Year's Eve fireworks display said Wednesday that makeshift barricades stopped them from moving along a main boulevard, causing the crush of people...Local newspapers are speculating that thieves put up the roadblocks so that pickpockets could steal money and mobile phones from the packed-in people.
http://www.chron.com/...rvivors-blame-barricades-4160840.php
I'd like to forestall the upcoming misrepresentation by urging that people consider this an example of the results of shifting the physical burden of a criminal act to precisely the people under no moral obligation to bear it. Would guns have helped in this specific instance? I can't say that. But this is precisely the identical moral situation as results when those who insist that breaking into an occupied home for burglary "shouldn't carry a death sentence" rob law-abiding citizens of any ability to shift the physical burden of crime back onto criminals.
AbE:
I mean, you have to defend yourself from the guy who wants to punch you. By killing him.
People die from being punched sometimes. Last year there was a case here in town where a guy was punched during a fight outside a McDonalds, which made him fall over, where he hit his head on the curb and died instantly.
You have no right at all to expect that you can punch someone and have them not treat it like a potentially lethal attack because you can be killed by people punching you. A firearm is a perfectly rational defense against someone attacking you with their fists. If you don't want to get shot, I guess, don't go around punching people.
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1051 by Rahvin, posted 01-02-2013 12:23 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1099 by hooah212002, posted 01-02-2013 4:48 PM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1055 of 5179 (686541)
01-02-2013 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1053 by Straggler
01-02-2013 12:26 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
So you agree that high gun prevalence is related to high homicide rate but you don't think reducing the prevalence of guns would reduce the homicide rate?
No, because unlike you I don't make the mistake of equating correlation with causality. Rainy weather is related to people carrying umbrellas, but it doesn't follow from that that if we outlawed umbrellas it would never again rain.
I just want to know if you think that reducing the number of guns would reduce the homicide rate because you seem to be saying contradictory things here.
Straggler, I don't know how to be any clearer than I have been. You'll have to do a better job of explaining what you're finding so confusing. Yes I think the homicide rate is related to gun ownership. No I don't think reducing the number of guns owned would reduce the homicide rate. There's nothing contradictory here unless you make the elementary statistical error of assuming that correlation ("relatedness", if you prefer) is the same thing as causality.
I haven't seen anyone say that.
Percy said that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1053 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2013 12:26 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1056 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2013 12:51 PM crashfrog has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1056 of 5179 (686549)
01-02-2013 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1055 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 12:34 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Crash writes:
Yes I think the homicide rate is related to gun ownership.
In what way are the two related in your view if there is no causal relationship of any sort?
Crash writes:
No I don't think reducing the number of guns owned would reduce the homicide rate.
Then in what sense are the two things related? What effect would reducing the number of guns have on homicide rate in your view?
Crash writes:
There's nothing contradictory here unless you make the elementary statistical error of assuming that correlation ("relatedness", if you prefer) is the same thing as causality.
Why is there this correlation? Is it just random? Or is there a causal relationship between the two of some sort?
Crash writes:
Rainy weather is related to people carrying umbrellas, but it doesn't follow from that that if we outlawed umbrellas it would never again rain.
But if it never rained again people would stop carrying umbrellas. So there is a causal relationship between the two things (even if it isn't the one you cited)
Crash writes:
("relatedness", if you prefer)
Call it what you will. Is the correlation/relatedness just a random fluke in your opinion? Or is there some sort of causal link between the two?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1055 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:34 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1057 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 12:58 PM Straggler has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1057 of 5179 (686550)
01-02-2013 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 1056 by Straggler
01-02-2013 12:51 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
In what way are the two related in your view if there is no causal relationship of any sort?
You asked and I answered, already. What wasn't clear the first time?
Then in what sense are the two things related?
They're related in that there's a correlation between high rates of gun ownership and a high incidence of homicide.
Why is there this correlation? Is it just random?
There's a correlation because Americans are more homicidal and also they own more guns. When you asked me for a potential mechanism of causality, I told you that it made sense to me that a people who want to commit homicides would own the guns they need to do it. What was unclear about that?
So there is a causal relationship between the two things (even if it isn't the one you cited)
Yes, of course. It's the one that seems reasonable because there's a plausible mechanism for causality. Not the one where the putative mechanism of causality makes no sense.
Or is there some sort of causal link between the two?
Asked and answered. What was confusing the first time?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1056 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2013 12:51 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1094 by Straggler, posted 01-02-2013 4:27 PM crashfrog has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(3)
Message 1058 of 5179 (686552)
01-02-2013 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 1036 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 10:53 AM


Re: Statistical Blindness
Hi Crash,
I'm not trying to create "teachable moments" for you, I'm just here trying to discuss gun control. I haven't found much you've said in your messages that is correct, whether it be about graph origins or first derivatives or ecological fallacies or even lightning strikes, but you seem determined to carry on in the typical way that you do when you're on the wrong side of an argument, so I'll just leave you to it. One could waste a lot of time responding to the stuff you make up, I don't see any point to it.
The data we have indicates that gun death rates are proportional to gun ownership rates, and this is precisely what one would expect. More cars means more vehicle accidents, more food consumption means more fat, more guns means more gun deaths. There's no data or mechanism indicating any other relationship. To reduce gun deaths we must reduce gun ownership.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1036 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 10:53 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1059 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 1:26 PM Percy has replied
 Message 1063 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-02-2013 2:37 PM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1059 of 5179 (686554)
01-02-2013 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1058 by Percy
01-02-2013 1:13 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
I haven't found much you've said in your messages that is correct, whether it be about graph origins or first derivatives or ecological fallacies or even lightning strikes, but you seem determined to carry on in the typical way that you do when you're on the wrong side of an argument
I'm not "carrying on" anything except that, as usual, when someone says the sky is green and I can look out the window and see that it is not, I opt not to believe anonymous strangers on the internet over the testimony of my own eyes.
When you show me a trendline that begins at -1, -1 and call it a trendline that begins at 0,0, there's absolutely no reason I should believe you over my eyes. Why on Earth would I do that?
One could waste a lot of time responding to the stuff you make up
One could waste a lot of time correcting your errors until you're prepared to accept that you're making them. Lucky for you, I guess, I have the time to waste. But you could do us all a favor, and we could return to the topic, when you stop insisting that up is down, left is right, and -1, -1 is the same as 0, 0.
The data we have indicates that gun death rates are proportional to gun ownership rates, and this is precisely what one would expect. More cars means more vehicle accidents, more food consumption means more fat, more guns means more gun deaths. There's no data or mechanism indicating any other relationship. To reduce gun deaths we must reduce gun ownership.
Fallacy of denying the antecedent. And asserting that there's no mechanism when I've given you the mechanism is a misrepresentation. Willful, now, because you were already told it was a misrepresentation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1058 by Percy, posted 01-02-2013 1:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1060 by Percy, posted 01-02-2013 2:12 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 1070 by xongsmith, posted 01-02-2013 3:05 PM crashfrog has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


(2)
Message 1060 of 5179 (686561)
01-02-2013 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1059 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 1:26 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
crashfrog writes:
Fallacy of denying the antecedent. And asserting that there's no mechanism when I've given you the mechanism is a misrepresentation. Willful, now, because you were already told it was a misrepresentation.
Really, yet another person is now willfully misrepresenting you? Wow!
About the rest, I don't know how you came up with the misimpressions you did. I've seen the posts from others trying to correct you about a couple of them, but it didn't help and I don't think I could do any better. Sometimes it seems like you just get yourself into a state and, throwing logic and rationality to the wind, issue barrages of senseless accusations in the hope that something sticks while in the meantime distracting all attention from the topic. They're all just things you've made up (I'm sure they appear very real to you), and it doesn't seem like a worthwhile investment of time trying to engage with you about them.
Meanwhile, back at the topic, if there's a mechanism you've mentioned whereby the positively sloped line could reverse direction then it's really only necessary to describe it one more time.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1059 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 1:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1061 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:22 PM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1061 of 5179 (686565)
01-02-2013 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1060 by Percy
01-02-2013 2:12 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
About the rest, I don't know how you came up with the misimpressions you did.
I can only read your words, not your intent. If you think I've somehow managed to come away from your words with precisely the wrong idea, I can only assure you that I've read your posts exactly as you wrote them. But again, the fact that you have no answer except a giant shrug of the shoulders to the points I'm raising against you makes me think you don't understand the statistics you're putting out there.
Sometimes it seems like you just get yourself into a state and, throwing logic and rationality to the wind, issue barrages of senseless accusations in the hope that something sticks while in the meantime distracting all attention from the topic.
Percy, they're not "senseless accusations." I've explained how they're rational counterpoints to what you're trying to say. I've explained the background that I have that allows me to interpret statistics and make reasonable inferences from them. I've explained how I'm arriving at the interpretations I'm arriving at and invited you to explain how I'm wrong.
Your response to all of the above has been to ignore it, throw up your hands, repeat the same things you said before, and then act like it's my fault the discussion isn't going anywhere, all the while promising that there's no point in even responding to me, and then responding to me. So explain to me how I'm the one being unreasonable, here. I'm the one trying to find the basic disconnect between what you think the data says and what it actually says. You're the one making accusations that I'm just making things up and won't see reason. But I didn't make up the fact that you put forward a trendline that begins at -1, -1 and then described it as one that rises from 0,0. That's something you did three times, at least.
if there's a mechanism you've mentioned whereby the positively sloped line could reverse direction then it's really only necessary to describe it one more time.
Like I said in Message 1027, the mechanism is people using firearms to prevent themselves from being murdered without actually firing the weapon. Each additional firearm that allows someone to do that results in one less homicide.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1060 by Percy, posted 01-02-2013 2:12 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1062 by onifre, posted 01-02-2013 2:31 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 1068 by Percy, posted 01-02-2013 2:57 PM crashfrog has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 1062 of 5179 (686567)
01-02-2013 2:31 PM
Reply to: Message 1061 by crashfrog
01-02-2013 2:22 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
the mechanism is people using firearms to prevent themselves from being murdered without actually firing the weapon. Each additional firearm that allows someone to do that results in one less homicide.
People in inner cities carry guns. They are at a higher risk of being murdered because no one is afraid to pull the trigger even if the other person has a gun too. This is where the highest homicide rates are. How can giving more people guns in these places make it safer? It just doesn't follow since, more and more people are already are acquiring more guns in these neighborhoods and the rate contnues to go up.
However, in Manhattan, where you see strict gun laws, the rate has dropped. Harlem is now a safe neighborhood. Less guns makes things safer, crash.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1061 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:22 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1064 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:37 PM onifre has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1063 of 5179 (686568)
01-02-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1058 by Percy
01-02-2013 1:13 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
The data we have indicates that gun death rates are proportional to gun ownership rates, and this is precisely what one would expect. More cars means more vehicle accidents, more food consumption means more fat, more guns means more gun deaths.
How do you know its not the other way: more gun deaths means more guns? That is, when violence is occuring, people arm themselves against it. The data doesn't distinguish between the two.
There's no data or mechanism indicating any other relationship. To reduce gun deaths we must reduce gun ownership.
Not necessarily. Increasing the penalty for gun crimes might reduce the usage of guns and reduce gun deaths without reducing gun ownership.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1058 by Percy, posted 01-02-2013 1:13 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1087 by Percy, posted 01-02-2013 4:02 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 1064 of 5179 (686569)
01-02-2013 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 1062 by onifre
01-02-2013 2:31 PM


Re: Statistical Blindness
They are at a higher risk of being murdered because no one is affriad to pull the trigger even if the other person has a gun too.
I don't see what your basis is for that inference. People in the "inner city" are probably the least likely to be lawfully carrying firearms for personal defense, as opposed to carrying them as a result of their association with drug crime. Moreover, firing on someone who tries to rob or attack you during a drug crime would be classified a drug-related homicide, not a justifiable self-defense shooting (i.e. it would be a death during the commission of a felony, which is murder.)
Less guns makes things safer, crash.
And I'll believe you just as soon as you can show me evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by onifre, posted 01-02-2013 2:31 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1066 by onifre, posted 01-02-2013 2:55 PM crashfrog has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 1065 of 5179 (686575)
01-02-2013 2:52 PM
Reply to: Message 698 by Dr Adequate
12-21-2012 1:26 PM


clarifications needed
Dr. A posted these way back in the beginning:
from Message 663
All the countries with a Human Development Index over 73% ("very high" according to UNDP) are represented. Figures are taken from the WP articles:
* List of countries by Human Development Index - Wikipedia
* List of countries by firearm-related death rate - Wikipedia
* Estimated number of civilian guns per capita by country - Wikipedia
Following the links will show where they got their figures from.
and from Message 698:
First thoughts: Looks like someone hit it with a shotgun.
I think the trend is fairly clear.
I see there are 47 countries in the Very High category.
That's how many points the guy said were on the graph. I'll see if I can find out what happened to the rest.
ETA: It must be because WP doesn't provide figures for some countries, e.g. Lichtenstein is in the Very High category of the HDI, but WP has no figures for guns per capita.
And then if I look down to where it goes below 73%, i find that to be country number 77.
What's up with that?
It must be that .73 was a typo for .793.
Who are "they"?
Wikipedia.
Where'd you get the image from?
Some guy. A biologist, I think. It hardly matters if he's using figures from Wikipedia.
Some guy.......
ok, but what does the red line mean? is it a regression line? Do you know? Or does this "some guy" know?
BTW, crashfrog, the red line here is most definitely NOT Y=X. And it most definitely does not begin at {-1, -1}.
Here is Percy's plot (eyeballed from the above plot) again, from Message 986:
Here's a chart where I eyeballed the points from Dr A's chart to a website that does best fit of scatter plots (Scatterplot - NLVM):
The line is very similar to Dr A's, r=0.724 shows a fairly strong linear relationship.
My first question is: What happened to Argentina? And 9 other data points?
My second is more of a courtesy: Percy, the image cuts off the first data pairs due to the scroll bar. Can you just post the plain data pairs? Or maybe Dr. A should post his 47 pairs.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 698 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-21-2012 1:26 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1067 by crashfrog, posted 01-02-2013 2:57 PM xongsmith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024