A modest proposal for gun control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
18-12-2012, 02:20 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
I don't care about killed by firearm. Dead by bullet or dead by skull fracture, doesn't matter. Dead is dead.

And c8.10 doesn't look like evidence of anything. The time scale isn't fine grained enough, and you can see clearly the massive random swings from year to year. The change I see is so far within the margin of error it's ridiculous. The changes in the other document are small as well and the trends generally seem to have begun before the ban.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:22 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(18-12-2012 02:20 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I don't care about killed by firearm. Dead by bullet or dead by skull fracture, doesn't matter. Dead is dead.
This is a debate about firearms, so it does matter.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:27 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(18-12-2012 02:22 PM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 02:20 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I don't care about killed by firearm. Dead by bullet or dead by skull fracture, doesn't matter. Dead is dead.
This is a debate about firearms, so it does matter.
Why? The rationale for banning guns is that it results in fewer people dead, right? When you get right down to the core of the argument? Well if banning guns does not result in fewer people dead, then the whole exercise is moot. Of course banning guns means fewer people killed with guns, it's practically a tautology, though the data from Australia shows the effect is actually fairly small. But if you still end up with people killed by other means then it's a no-sum game and you've spent a lot of time and money and pissed off a lot of people for no reason.


Can you grok that, Logica?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:30 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
The quantity of deaths prevented is irrelevant. If it can prevent one death, it is worth it.

[Image: 4833fa13.jpg]
Poonjab
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:30 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(18-12-2012 02:20 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I don't care about killed by firearm. Dead by bullet or dead by skull fracture, doesn't matter. Dead is dead.

And c8.10 doesn't look like evidence of anything. The time scale isn't fine grained enough, and you can see clearly the massive random swings from year to year. The change I see is so far within the margin of error it's ridiculous. The changes in the other document are small as well and the trends generally seem to have begun before the ban.
When you are looking at numbers per, there is no margin of error. This is not a plus or minus 50 people, it is the total number reported.


Killed by firearm is the whole point. That is why I included both references. Homicide rates are variable, the longest stretch of data they give for gun deaths shows a drop from ~1989 to present (close to present and the drop actually starts in the mid-late '90s)

"The time scale isn't fine grained enough" every node in the graph, is a year. No need for a finer resolution as it would make the graph look like shit.

"massive random swings from year to year" Correct, some years are worse than others. That is why you look at trends over longer periods of time rather than year to year.

"The changes in the other document are small as well and the trends generally seem to have begun before the ban."
A) I'll take small changes all day. When you are talking about decreases in rate, that has a big impact on total number killed.
B) Trying to say it started just before the ban is ignoring the point already made about swings from year to year. The overall trend is important, not one year compared to the next.


You are shown numbers and you immediately begin to try and special plead the trends away, you sound like a fundy.

I am playing with some US data now. Let's see what shakes loose.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:53 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(18-12-2012 02:30 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(18-12-2012 02:20 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  I don't care about killed by firearm. Dead by bullet or dead by skull fracture, doesn't matter. Dead is dead.

And c8.10 doesn't look like evidence of anything. The time scale isn't fine grained enough, and you can see clearly the massive random swings from year to year. The change I see is so far within the margin of error it's ridiculous. The changes in the other document are small as well and the trends generally seem to have begun before the ban.
When you are looking at numbers per, there is no margin of error. This is not a plus or minus 50 people, it is the total number reported.


Killed by firearm is the whole point. That is why I included both references. Homicide rates are variable, the longest stretch of data they give for gun deaths shows a drop from ~1989 to present (close to present and the drop actually starts in the mid-late '90s)

"The time scale isn't fine grained enough" every node in the graph, is a year. No need for a finer resolution as it would make the graph look like shit.

"massive random swings from year to year" Correct, some years are worse than others. That is why you look at trends over longer periods of time rather than year to year.

"The changes in the other document are small as well and the trends generally seem to have begun before the ban."
A) I'll take small changes all day. When you are talking about decreases in rate, that has a big impact on total number killed.
B) Trying to say it started just before the ban is ignoring the point already made about swings from year to year. The overall trend is important, not one year compared to the next.


You are shown numbers and you immediately begin to try and special plead the trends away, you sound like a fundy.

I am playing with some US data now. Let's see what shakes loose.
No, "killed by firearm" is meaningless if it is simply replaced by death by other means.

You are saying that 10,000 killed by firearm of 15,000 killed before we ban firearms is worse than 1,000 killed by firearm of 15,000 killed after we ban firearms. What exactly was accomplished?

You have to look at total homicides.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:58 PM (This post was last modified: 18-12-2012 03:13 PM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
Violent Crime rates and murder rates from 1960 to 2010. What was this about there not being an appreciable impact by gun legislation in the '90s?

During the period of the assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, both violent crime and murder rates dropped (after leveling off the last 4 years from 2000 to 2004, coincident with Bush's presidency). The violent crime rate dropped by 25 points while the murder rate dropped by 0.3 points.

The point is this, crime rates are at an all time low for the last 30 years, as are murder rates. These are trends towards significant decreases from all-time highs in the mid-early 90's.

I am not saying gun legislation is the only cause, but it surely had an impact. Perhaps the decreases in the mid-late 70's are also correlated with the Vietnam War and its resulting impact back home? The War on Drugs might be in here somewhere too with rates increasing dramatically in the mid 80's into the 90's?

Not simple, but arguing that legislation has done nothing is fruitless.

I did this myself from data here: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/...yState.cfm

[attachment=991]

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 02:59 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
Better?

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 03:00 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
That's the US by the way. I should have labeled that. Damn.

Evolve
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-12-2012, 03:01 PM
RE: A modest proposal for gun control
(18-12-2012 02:58 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Violent Crime rates and murder rates from 1960 to 2010. What was this about there not being an appreciable impact by gun legislation in the '90s?

During the period of the assault weapons ban from 1994 to 2004, both violent crime and murder rates dropped (after leveling off the last 4 years from 2000 to 2004, coincident with Bush's presidency). The violent crime rate dropped by 25 points while the murder rate dropped by 0.3 points.

The point is this, crime rates are at an all time low for the last 30 years, as are murder rates. These are trends towards significant decreases from all-time highs in the mid-early 90's.

I am not saying gun legislation is the only cause, but it surely had an impact. Perhaps the decreases in the mid-late 70's are also correlated with the Vietnam War and its resulting impact back home? The War on Drugs might be in here somewhere too with rates increasing dramatically in the mid 80's into the 90's?

Not simple, but arguing that legislation has done nothing is fruitless.

I did this myself from data here: http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/...yState.cfm
The assault weapons ban ended 8 years ago. Crime rate still falling. That law was ineffective.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: