|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
 Posted - 06/30/2008 : 21:28:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
If only there were some way to link those statistics to private gun ownership. |
No, we'd already agreed that gun laws don't have any effect on crime rates. I simply wanted to see if the claim you made had an empirical basis. Turns out that it did not. [Shrug] I made no suggestion that the huge difference in homicide rates between the US and the EU had anything to do with gun laws, and Northern Ireland's example should show it to be a very tough case to make (tough to generalize it to poverty, too), so I don't know why you chose to bring it up again. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2008 : 21:10:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| I simply wanted to see if the claim you made had an empirical basis. Turns out that it did not. |
Show me where I said they were the same. Similar, yes. The same, no.
| I made no suggestion that the huge difference in homicide rates between the US and the EU |
The differences are not "huge".
All this is just pointless running around though. None of it bears on the question you want to discuss Dave.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/01/2008 : 22:23:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Show me where I said they were the same. Similar, yes. The same, no. |
Show me where I said that you said they were the same. Was my assumption that when you said "comparable" you meant "not significantly different" incorrect?
In the strictest sense, one and a trillion are "comparable," in that one can compare one to the other. And they are more "similar" to each other than one and a googolplex are. But this only demonstrates that both words have far from rigorous definitions.
So sure, 2 and 6 are both "comparable" and "similar," but the usual math that gets used when we want to know if differences might be random chance tells us that in context, there is a significant difference between them. "Comparable" and "similar," being subjective qualifiers when applied to raw numbers, are useless terms.| The differences are not "huge". |
With a p-value some nine orders of magnitude below the commonly used p-value for physics experiments, the difference is hugely significant.| All this is just pointless running around though. |
No, it's actually got a point, it's just a different point.| None of it bears on the question you want to discuss Dave. |
Unbelievably false concern on your part, and so highly insulting.
You expressed a desire for rigor, and so that's what I'm asking from you and your own claims. Instead I get deflection, strawmen, shifting goalposts and now absurd concern. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 08:34:18 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| You expressed a desire for rigor, and so that's what I'm asking from you and your own claims. Instead I get deflection, strawmen, shifting goalposts and now absurd concern. |
I expressed a desire for a rigorous examination of any reason to restrict the right to own an inanimate object.
In this regard, you've got nothing. So far, every post by you in this thread is nothing more than a massive use of logical fallacy to run away from the issue you yourself said you wanted to examine. The irony of you accusing me of shifting the goalposts is noted.
I'll grant you your "huge" difference, and any other point you have attempted to make on the statistics angle. You're right. I'm mistaken. There you go.
Now, if you'd be so kind as to move the discussion in the direction you initially indicated you wanted(looking at the idea of gun ownership from a risk/benefit perspective), perhaps we can continue.
I still reject the idea that anyone must justify their right to own an inanimate object and assert that anyone wishing to impose such restrictions (don't even say it.., I KNOW that you aren't advocating that position) bears the burden of providing the reason and evidence for imposing such a restriction.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 10:43:25 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
I expressed a desire for a rigorous examination of any reason to restrict the right to own an inanimate object. |
And your failure to use standard statistical methods was a part of your rigorous examination of one putative reason so put forth?| In this regard, you've got nothing. So far, every post by you in this thread is nothing more than a massive use of logical fallacy to run away from the issue you yourself said you wanted to examine. The irony of you accusing me of shifting the goalposts is noted. |
Your denial of reality and failure to identify any logical fallacy on my part are also noted.| Now, if you'd be so kind as to move the discussion in the direction you initially indicated you wanted(looking at the idea of gun ownership from a risk/benefit perspective), perhaps we can continue. |
I've started to do so already (hence your obvious denial of reality).| I still reject the idea that anyone must justify their right to own an inanimate object and assert that anyone wishing to impose such restrictions (don't even say it.., I KNOW that you aren't advocating that position) bears the burden of providing the reason and evidence for imposing such a restriction. |
All of which is irrelevant to the direction I would have this discussion move, and you know it's irrelevant, yet you keep posting it. Go figure.
As an aside, and closer to the subject of the OP, I heard D.C. Chief of Police Cathy L. Lanier on NPR the other night saying that she didn't think the SCOTUS decision would have any effect on the crime rates in the city. Instead, she expressed concern about suicide rates, self-inflicted injuries and a possible shift of domestic-violence outcomes for the worse. But she was talking about just handguns.
But back on track. It seems that only those benefits of firearms that are directly economic in nature are quantifiable even in principle (for example, hunting for food, competitive shooting, gun sales, etc.), much like art (for example). Non-economic benefits such as "feeling more secure," or "hunting is the only time I get to spend with my son," aren't going to be quantifiable without well-designed, large-scale sociological studies, and even then they may not be quantifiable in a way that's compatible with the economic factors. Similarly, some detrimental factors (such as feeling afraid to go outside because of all the guns) aren't easily quantified (and, of course, assigning a dollar value to a human life - or even a kneecap - is problematic).
Anyone have any suggestions on how to deal with such a problem (or knowledge on how others have dealt with the problem)? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 14:21:45 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
Spend less time insulting me and maybe you could spend some more time trying to make your case... oh, wait.. you don't have a case (for a risk/benefit analysis). All of the rest is just you engaging in one giant multi-tentaclular red herring.
Seriously, you guys complain about the tone and language of this site, wanting to clean it up and make it more respectable, yet you keep engaging in this type of petty namecalling and insulting.
Figure out what its gonna be, and then set the tone by your own example.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 15:39:52 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
Spend less time insulting me... |
Spend less time lying about me.| ...and maybe you could spend some more time trying to make your case... oh, wait.. you don't have a case (for a risk/benefit analysis). |
Are you saying that I don't have a reason to try to execute a risk/benefit analysis? Knowledge for knowledge's sake should be reason enough.| All of the rest is just you engaging in one giant multi-tentaclular red herring. |
For what? What argument am I trying to distract away from?| Seriously, you guys complain about the tone and language of this site, wanting to clean it up and make it more respectable, yet you keep engaging in this type of petty namecalling and insulting. |
It'd be a hell of a lot easier without you insulting people at nearly every opportunity, Dude. But here you are, lying about me by saying that I'm trying to distract away from some argument you won't identify, after having told us all that you're in favor of rigorous examination of anti-gun arguments while you dismiss one away in the sloppiest way possible. You're being a sanctimonious, hypocritical ass, and it's time to quit pretending (lying) that you're a victim here.
If you find these things insulting, tough noogies. I am outraged at your behavior, and I'm sick of treating your idiotic posts with kid gloves for fear of lowering the level of discourse on the site. Your attack posts did that long before you took public issue with my "tone."
It's patently obvious that you can't see straight around the issue of firearms bans. It's obvious because you've never, never made anything like the "inanimate object" argument in relation to any of the numerous woo claims discussed around here. Your inability to detach yourself is clear, and it's leading you to irrationality. If you don't want to see it, that's fine by me, but you have no good basis upon which to object. If you don't wish to be insulted, then quit being insulting. "Restraint" is certainly no longer on my list of virtues where you're concerned, Dude.| Figure out what its gonna be, and then set the tone by your own example. |
You know that there's a term for this: it's called "concern trolling." |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 16:35:43 [Permalink]
|
Dave_W said:
| For what? What argument am I trying to distract away from? |
From the fact that you don't have an argument. You could start by simply stating what you think a risk/benefit analysis for firearms should entail. Your idea, so its your job to get the ball rolling.
All of your above post is nothing but you berating me, and zero substance on the issue you allegedly want to discuss. RED HERRING. Because it has taken the topic away from the intended discussion.
I've already surrendered every point you asked for here.
You have once again lowered the bar of civility, an act which you have threatened me with a ban (more than once) for doing. Now that I am insisting that you maintain your own standards you accuse me of "concern trolling". Well, screw that. I'm not blasting you for it because you will fucking cry and red text me. Yet you continue to insult me. So what is the correct response? Let your insults and fallacies pass in the hope you will eventually realize what you are doing?
If you can't act in accordance with your own set of rules, how can you expect and demand it of others? There is a word for that.
So yes, accuse me of "concern trolling" all you want. As long as you continue to engage in this type of behavior, I'll continue to point it out to you.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 18:34:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
From the fact that you don't have an argument. |
You mean the argument that I said I didn't have? This is getting surreal.| All of your above post is nothing but you berating me, and zero substance on the issue you allegedly want to discuss. RED HERRING. Because it has taken the topic away from the intended discussion. |
I'm not so impatient as you, Dude. I'm willing to give more time to my own thoughts on the question I asked before (for which you offered no answer at all, not even to tell me it's unanswerable), as well as giving more time for others to chime in. Surely it's still there. Yup, it is. Maybe tomorrow I'll have some insight on it. Perhaps someone else will. A positive answer is needed in order to progress with the first tentative measurements. A negative answer means that a risk/benefit analysis is impossible. This is an important issue, I'd prefer to not do a sloppy rush-job on it.
In the meantime, your lies about me needed to be addressed.| You have once again lowered the bar of civility, an act which you have threatened me with a ban (more than once) for doing. Now that I am insisting that you maintain your own standards you accuse me of "concern trolling". Well, screw that. I'm not blasting you for it because you will fucking cry and red text me. |
Sounds like you just blasted me, and yet here we are with no red text. Frankly, you seem to be self-destructing over the fact that I don't have the argument that I said I didn't have, and it's rather interesting to watch, in a Tacoma-Narrows-Bridge sorta way (I hope you don't kill a dog, though). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/02/2008 : 18:46:31 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ricky
It seemed like good progress was being made until this point. |
Nah, it was a side trip, at best. Comparisons of murder rates alone don't help, because the high rates in Northern Ireland and South Africa surely aren't due to legal private firearm ownership. The reasons that the murder rates are so different is important, and Dude's poverty hypothesis is likely a largish part of the US's rate. But really, I just wanted to see if Dude would respond rationally to a strictly empirical argument. It took two more posts, and he did so only grudgingly. He still seems angry about it, because he brought up the fact that he said he was wrong again without prompting. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 07/03/2008 : 22:26:37 [Permalink]
|
Was going to respond to this before the thread went down the shitter... now that it seems calmer:
B10 said:
| You can't compare the number of items to the number of deaths. To make a more valid comparison (but still flawed, for my above stated reason), you have to compare the use of each item to the number of fatalities. |
You'd have to define "use". Establish your sample group, people who "use" guns, and determine the average number of hours of use per day or week in that group. Then you could do the same for cars. Then comparing the data would be simple.
Gun "use" would have to be defined as carrying a gun or having one in close proximity (like on the nightstand or some location you can easily access it). Obviously "number of bullets intentionally fired" fails as a definition for "use" in this case.
You'd think that with all the political grandstanding and fearmongering done by left-wing-nut gun ban advocates some one would have commissioned at least one legit independent study on just this. Nothing comes up for me on any db I can access, google is a bust, etc.
From a pragmatic political point of view I'd like to see democrats leave the gun issue alone until they have a real case against. In 1994 Clinton signed the "assault weapons ban" (the one that expired in 2004). He did it two months before the elections that year. It wasn't the only issue republicans voted on, but I think it was the tipping point issue for many people. They were pissed about Clinton winning in '92 (partly blaming Perot being on ballots, they felt robbed), and a whole host of social issues.. then along comes that stupid useless law two months before the election. Bye bye democratic majority.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
| Edited by - Dude on 07/03/2008 22:27:06 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 07/04/2008 : 08:18:53 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
You'd have to define "use". Establish your sample group, people who "use" guns, and determine the average number of hours of use per day or week in that group. Then you could do the same for cars. Then comparing the data would be simple. |
Yes.
On another note, I'm wondering if "feeling more secure" might be the most-common non-economic benefit of firearm ownership. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
SCOTUS Hand Gun Decision
