Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2013, 07:03 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 06:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(30-04-2013 06:30 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  I suppose I should have read the entire thread but I'm not going to so I'll just be on my way.

I have not presented them again on this thread. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that.

I said this "Take Australia for example. They changed their gun laws in the late 90's and while they have seen a drop in crime over that time, it is similar to that seen in places like the US over the same time interval. But they have not had a single mass shooting in over 10 years. Gun laws will not affect crime because guns are an instrument of criminals, not the cause of criminal behavior, but gun laws do change the nature of guns and how guns are viewed and any change that can keep us from hearing about an Alabama man taking a kid hostage and shooting a bus driver, or someone luring firemen to their death, or the shooting of a congresswoman, is fine by me." here.

And then I said this "Like I said, let's just take from the 80's onward. There is more than one, there were 8 in that span that I mention and 9 if we take it back to the mid-70's. The reason that is important is that if we plot shooting incidents over time, they were averaging around 1 every 2 years from 1980 to 1995 (8 incidents divided by 15 years equals a rate of 0.5 incidents per year). Since the gun laws changed, they have been shooting-free for >10 years. " here.

Got it. I find the Australian numbers very interesting.

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 07:07 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 07:03 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(30-04-2013 06:56 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  I have not presented them again on this thread. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that.

I said this "Take Australia for example. They changed their gun laws in the late 90's and while they have seen a drop in crime over that time, it is similar to that seen in places like the US over the same time interval. But they have not had a single mass shooting in over 10 years. Gun laws will not affect crime because guns are an instrument of criminals, not the cause of criminal behavior, but gun laws do change the nature of guns and how guns are viewed and any change that can keep us from hearing about an Alabama man taking a kid hostage and shooting a bus driver, or someone luring firemen to their death, or the shooting of a congresswoman, is fine by me." here.

And then I said this "Like I said, let's just take from the 80's onward. There is more than one, there were 8 in that span that I mention and 9 if we take it back to the mid-70's. The reason that is important is that if we plot shooting incidents over time, they were averaging around 1 every 2 years from 1980 to 1995 (8 incidents divided by 15 years equals a rate of 0.5 incidents per year). Since the gun laws changed, they have been shooting-free for >10 years. " here.

Got it. I find the Australian numbers very interesting.

I'm trying to find the raw numbers to go along with this statement
"Andrew Leigh of Australian National University and Christine Neill of Wilfrid Laurier University finding that the firearm homicide rate fell by 59 percent, and the firearm suicide rate fell by 65 percent, in the decade after the law was introduced, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides and suicides."

Should be in this.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 07:10 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
In Figures 1 A and B, they plot homicide vs homicide by gun and then in B, suicide and suicide by gun. Decreases in all 4 after the introduction of the laws in 1996.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 07:12 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 07:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In Figures 1 A and B, they plot homicide vs homicide by gun and then in B, suicide and suicide by gun. Decreases in all 4 after the introduction of the laws in 1996.

I found this http://guncontrol.org.au/

“I am quite sure now that often, very often, in matters concerning religion and politics a man’s reasoning powers are not above the monkey’s.”~Mark Twain
“Ocean: A body of water occupying about two-thirds of a world made for man - who has no gills.”~ Ambrose Bierce
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Full Circle's post
30-04-2013, 07:15 AM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 07:12 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(30-04-2013 07:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In Figures 1 A and B, they plot homicide vs homicide by gun and then in B, suicide and suicide by gun. Decreases in all 4 after the introduction of the laws in 1996.

I found this http://guncontrol.org.au/

They show the same thing, just different visual representations. The line graphs are better for looking at changes in rate, whereas the bar graphs do a better job visualizing the magnitude of the change in rate over time.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 07:19 AM (This post was last modified: 30-04-2013 07:22 AM by TheBeardedDude.)
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 07:12 AM)Full Circle Wrote:  
(30-04-2013 07:10 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  In Figures 1 A and B, they plot homicide vs homicide by gun and then in B, suicide and suicide by gun. Decreases in all 4 after the introduction of the laws in 1996.

I found this http://guncontrol.org.au/

In any case, this was the reply I got from Carlo_the_bugsmasher
"No, Australia never really did see reductions in gun homicide rates as a result of gun control. If you go back to even before those laws went into effect, you would see that they never really had a gun crime problem to begin with. The fact that they only had one mass shooting in the entire history of the country really is not a measure of success for gun control laws. 20-30 shootings a year, then gun control, then none thereafter, I'd say yes." here

And this "But that data is really meaningless. You have only 1 datapoint in the entire history of the country to work with. There's a hoarde of factors which could contribute to mass shootings so a single datapoint is meaningless in the justification of this position." here

And after being shown the numbers, his reply was this "If it could be shown that you can save just one life by curtailing the Bill or Rights ie the First, Fourth, Fifth, Eighth Amendmens or any other civil liberty, would you?

The issue here is that rights do come with responsibilities. And we accept certain tradeoffs for the benefits provided by these liberties."
here

Bargaining and pleading, plus dodging and changing the subject.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 12:34 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(29-04-2013 09:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I am trying to figure out the disconnect here, but I can't. What the fuck do you mean it protects the people, but not the individuals? What do you think comprises 'the people'? The Bill of Rights is created to protect the people, which is comprised of individual Americans from the government, full stop.

You are going to have to be more specific in asking the question/point.

Read the Bill of Rights and read my post. Nothing I said was tricky or confusing.

There was a concern with people, not individuals. That is a huge distinction in understanding.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 12:38 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(29-04-2013 10:33 PM)TheBlackKnight Wrote:  Why question when the professor is saying what the target audience wants to hear?

When the Westboro Baptist comes and applies for a permit to petition, and the city grants permit, makes arrangement for security and such, they are literally protecting those few individual's 1st Amendment right's because it's like 14 inbred retards that most people fucking hate.

When a LEO reads you your "miranda" rights in the back of his car, he is reminding you of your 5th amendment rights, he dosent announce it to the crowd thats possibly watching.

I can think for myself.

Maybe it would be better to just not give a shit about reading and understanding the Constitution on our own. Let's allow our understanding all be dictated by 5 out of 4 (usually) members of a court, that is obviously political in nature because of they way members are appointed. Better yet, let us just randomly make things up that fall in line with our personally views on issues.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2013, 01:17 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 12:34 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 09:05 PM)Dark Light Wrote:  I am trying to figure out the disconnect here, but I can't. What the fuck do you mean it protects the people, but not the individuals? What do you think comprises 'the people'? The Bill of Rights is created to protect the people, which is comprised of individual Americans from the government, full stop.

You are going to have to be more specific in asking the question/point.

Read the Bill of Rights and read my post. Nothing I said was tricky or confusing.

There was a concern with people, not individuals. That is a huge distinction in understanding.


"The people" in the Bill of Rights has been determined to mean individuals by the Supreme Court. Repeatedly.

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
30-04-2013, 06:20 PM
RE: Another example of BS statistics and Strawmen, in the guns debate
(30-04-2013 01:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(30-04-2013 12:34 PM)TrulyX Wrote:  You are going to have to be more specific in asking the question/point.

Read the Bill of Rights and read my post. Nothing I said was tricky or confusing.

There was a concern with people, not individuals. That is a huge distinction in understanding.


"The people" in the Bill of Rights has been determined to mean individuals by the Supreme Court. Repeatedly.

How dare you attack the intellect and/or integrity of Supreme Court members!

Other than that, thanks for being useful and relevant.

The Paradox Of Fools And Wise Men:
“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.” ― Bertrand Russell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: