Slog
News & ArtsWednesday, March 20, 2013
Guns NRA Is Going to Win Again
Posted by Charles Mudede on Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 6:27 AM
It's becoming more and more clear that even the mass killing of children is not enough to induce meaningful gun legislation in the US. And so, as David Horsey points out, all we can do is just wait for the next mass shooting:
This time, we dodged a bullet. Another mass shooting – the sort of bloody event that seems to happen on a weekly basis – was averted Monday when James Oliver Seevakumara chose to shoot himself before he could carry out his plot to shoot a bunch of his fellow students at the University of Central Florida.What a country.He had pulled a gun on his roommate, who hid in a bathroom and called police. When the cops arrived, they discovered a blaring fire alarm and speculated that Seevakumara had set it off in order to lure others in his dorm out of their rooms for easy targeting. For whatever reason – perhaps the quick arrival of police – the 30-year-old business student turned a gun on himself instead of anyone else.
Seevakumara could have created plenty of carnage if he had followed through on the plan outlined in notes he left behind. Through the month of February, he had been busy amassing weapons and ammo, exercising his right to keep and bear arms – lots of arms.
1
Will somebody please tell me how any of the proposed 'meaningful gun legislation' would've specifically prevented the mass shootings at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Va. Tech or even Columbine?
If the legislation wouldn't have prevented the shootings, then it isn't meaningful, it's just more feel-good bullshit.
If the legislation wouldn't have prevented the shootings, then it isn't meaningful, it's just more feel-good bullshit.
2
Unless the "meaningful" legislation addresses mental illness it is not going to change things.....
5
@1: then you tell us what would, or pick one of these 2:
a. there is no problem
b. there is a problem but nothing can be done so we just accept it.
a. there is no problem
b. there is a problem but nothing can be done so we just accept it.
6
I'll pick "c," Max: There is a problem, but nobody has the guts to address an actual solution, so they just waste their time coming up with frivolous "solutions" that will only make honest gun owners' lives difficult.
7
Nice work Fifty-Two-Eighty. You managed to be a prick and avoid the question all at one time. Care to try again? If we can agree there is a problem, then what's the solution? What can be done to solve the problem of 32,000 people dying by gunfire in our country every year? How do we stop mass shootings, or for that matter regular shootings?
Of course, we all know that we must make sure that if we're going to save tens of thousands of lives it can only be done if it doesn't inconvenience any gun owners. So, what's the solution?
Of course, we all know that we must make sure that if we're going to save tens of thousands of lives it can only be done if it doesn't inconvenience any gun owners. So, what's the solution?
9
Gun zealots are America's crazy, raving uncles who ruin everyone's holiday dinners with their absolutist, wild west, anything goes bullshit rants. Jesus Christ you're all awful, arguing for an awful cause.
10
Wanna cut down on gun violence? Require a matching gun license with all ammunition purchases. That will make it difficult for people without registered firearms to stock up. Most gun owners would be extra sure to have their guns registered if they aren't already. Presto, you've separated the criminals from the law-abiding.
11
Until it's a maternity ward of a local hospital filled with new born white children (the reich wing would say non-white infants had it coming somehow) and a crazed NRA enabled freak shoots and kills about 60 of those kids...
Oh fuck it, that won't even be enough to produce the same gun controls they have in the rest of the developed world
Oh fuck it, that won't even be enough to produce the same gun controls they have in the rest of the developed world
12
@10: Huh? What is "registered?" This has no meaning to me. My guns aren't required to be registered. Neither are those in most of the country.
14
@12 It means whatever you want it to mean. Point being if you had to prove somehow you owned the kind of gun you were buying ammo for, then people who have stolen or illegal guns wouldn't be able to buy bullets. Ranges and other places that keep a general stock could get an exemption. How hard could that be? I'm sure they could figure out a way to make sure the gub'mint doesn't have a database of all gun owners. Fuck, let the NRA do it. They'd be happy to have a database of everyone's guns.
16
Puty@9: the majority of gun owners want closure of the gun show loophole and the outlawing of large capacity magazines. Poll after poll has shown this. But SLOG is not a good venue to uncover common ground- Stranger writing on this topic is clearly designed just to stir shit up- and of course D and R politicians are refusing to follow the will of the people.
17
Seriously, Matt? Let's start addressing the very real problems this country has with race and socioeconomics.
But yeah, that's never going to happen.
But yeah, that's never going to happen.
18
Hey, I'm all for that. And I agree that would reduce a lot of gun crime. AND I agree that not much is likely to be done since the powers that be have been sending us all in the opposite direction since 1980.
But there is also the problem of mass shootings typically committed by middle class white males against random targets. I can pretty much avoid common gun crime, but what's going to protect my family and I from the mass murderer, other than chance?
But there is also the problem of mass shootings typically committed by middle class white males against random targets. I can pretty much avoid common gun crime, but what's going to protect my family and I from the mass murderer, other than chance?
19
@13: probably something about a comprehensive mental healthcare system that would take decades to have any tangible effect, let alone be funded by a GOP congress that doesn't want to buy a poor kid breakfast.
20
@17: whoops, i got it wrong - you're suggesting tackling an even LARGER intractable problem that the GOP exists to prevent.
21
Matt, at <100 "mass shooting" deaths a year in this country, submit that you have a lot better things to worry about.
22
@17, Please enlighten us. How do we address "the very real problems this country has with race and socioeconomics."? You're very good at spewing meaningless shit without offering any actual suggestions to fix problems. At least universal background checks is an idea of a solution. If you can't even offer any idea's to fix the problem then go back to jerking off on your guns.
@11, You wish. The NRA doesn't give a shit about any human beings of any age or any race. They care about the money they get from the gun manufacturers. Unless that shooter shows up at NRA HQ and blows away half of the staff they won't ever change their opinion that every person should be armed to the teeth at all times. Even then, I'm not so sure.
@11, You wish. The NRA doesn't give a shit about any human beings of any age or any race. They care about the money they get from the gun manufacturers. Unless that shooter shows up at NRA HQ and blows away half of the staff they won't ever change their opinion that every person should be armed to the teeth at all times. Even then, I'm not so sure.
23
@18
This has been covered over and over and over in these forums.
a. The majority of instances of crime involving guns is brown people shooting other brown people with cheap handguns. Which is why The Stranger still refuses to maintain a simple list of these incidents. The way to reduce this is by addressing the economic inequalities.
b. The majority of the mass shootings (which are extremely rare) are done by mentally disturbed individuals. The way to reduce this is by addressing the lack of mental health care.
c. Suicide. Another instance of mental health care.
d. Accidents. Better training programs.
e. Crimes of passion (murder-suicide and such). These are difficult to address but are more rare than the other instances (except b).
This has been covered over and over and over in these forums.
a. The majority of instances of crime involving guns is brown people shooting other brown people with cheap handguns. Which is why The Stranger still refuses to maintain a simple list of these incidents. The way to reduce this is by addressing the economic inequalities.
b. The majority of the mass shootings (which are extremely rare) are done by mentally disturbed individuals. The way to reduce this is by addressing the lack of mental health care.
c. Suicide. Another instance of mental health care.
d. Accidents. Better training programs.
e. Crimes of passion (murder-suicide and such). These are difficult to address but are more rare than the other instances (except b).
24
@23, could you please explain in further detail how this recent mass killing plotter, Adam Lanza, the Columbine shooters, etc. were seeking mental treatment but couldn't get what they needed due to problems in the system?
25
@ 21, that makes sense, but that still only gives me chance as protection against that, and it would be cold comfort if I or anyone I knew was victim to it.
Two of my friends almost went to see the Batman movie at the Aurora theater that night. But one wasn't really into superhero movies, so they stayed home. THAT is already too close for my comfort.
OTOH, only one of my family members have ever had a home burgled, and they were out of town when it occurred. Obviously the thieves were aware of that, so a gun would have been moot if they owned one.
I know my chances of being burgled are greater, but that's why I always lock up, and have a dog. (My 12 year old cathode ray tube TV set and 17 year old car probably lets potential burglars know that we don't have a lot of easily-pawned or fenced items as well.)
I would submit that inconvenience to legitimate, non-murderous gun enthusiasts is a small price to pay to prevent more shootings like Aurora, or other heat-of-the-moment shootings that have nothing to do with one's socio-economic status. Sure, some people will have or get guns despite that, but some won't.
Two of my friends almost went to see the Batman movie at the Aurora theater that night. But one wasn't really into superhero movies, so they stayed home. THAT is already too close for my comfort.
OTOH, only one of my family members have ever had a home burgled, and they were out of town when it occurred. Obviously the thieves were aware of that, so a gun would have been moot if they owned one.
I know my chances of being burgled are greater, but that's why I always lock up, and have a dog. (My 12 year old cathode ray tube TV set and 17 year old car probably lets potential burglars know that we don't have a lot of easily-pawned or fenced items as well.)
I would submit that inconvenience to legitimate, non-murderous gun enthusiasts is a small price to pay to prevent more shootings like Aurora, or other heat-of-the-moment shootings that have nothing to do with one's socio-economic status. Sure, some people will have or get guns despite that, but some won't.
26
@24
Reduce, not eliminate.
Adam Lanza did have a history of mental issues.
But the people planning the shootings are usually not the ones who would seek treatment.
Reduce, not eliminate.
Adam Lanza did have a history of mental issues.
But the people planning the shootings are usually not the ones who would seek treatment.
27
@ 23, some of that is true, but some of it is not. And none of it really counters the argument that restricting gun access would impact all these crimes and tragedies.
28
Raising the minimum wage to $15-25/hour and ending the 'War on Drugs' would go a very long way towards reducing violence in this country. Reducing hospital/doctor costs to what Medicare pays and creating a working single payer health system (or any other system with reasonably priced coverage for all) would also help dramatically.
The direct link to this Time magazine article on health care costs is behind a paywall - however, it is reproduced here:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/…
@18 Statistically speaking, over the last decade you were more likely to win a million dollars in the lottery or get hit by a bus, or struck by lightning, than you were to be the victim of a mass shooting.
The direct link to this Time magazine article on health care costs is behind a paywall - however, it is reproduced here:
http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/…
@18 Statistically speaking, over the last decade you were more likely to win a million dollars in the lottery or get hit by a bus, or struck by lightning, than you were to be the victim of a mass shooting.
29
@27
"some of that is true, but some of it is not."
Is there some reason you cannot go into details regarding which you claim is true or not?
That's okay. I understand.
"And none of it really counters the argument that restricting gun access would impact all these crimes and tragedies."
Yes it does.
Because YOU do not know which guns will be used in which case and which guns will not be used in any of those cases.
And if YOU do not know that then how can a law be written that would achieve that?
Instead, the laws being proposed are based upon the faulty assumption that by making legal gun owners go through more hoops that somehow that will reduce the ability of people in categories "a" and "b" to get guns.
"some of that is true, but some of it is not."
Is there some reason you cannot go into details regarding which you claim is true or not?
That's okay. I understand.
"And none of it really counters the argument that restricting gun access would impact all these crimes and tragedies."
Yes it does.
Because YOU do not know which guns will be used in which case and which guns will not be used in any of those cases.
And if YOU do not know that then how can a law be written that would achieve that?
Instead, the laws being proposed are based upon the faulty assumption that by making legal gun owners go through more hoops that somehow that will reduce the ability of people in categories "a" and "b" to get guns.
30
This'll get the nuts all riled up: new constitutional amendment repealing the second amendment, and also making handgun ownership illegal.
Then we send the jack-booted thugs to confiscate all the handguns.
I don't mention thay as a serious proposal, of course. But since the nuts are unwilling to budge and they are hung up on the point of ownership of guns being legal, this temoves that point. What say, gun nuts? Want to propose a workable solution? Or do you want the worst?
Then we send the jack-booted thugs to confiscate all the handguns.
I don't mention thay as a serious proposal, of course. But since the nuts are unwilling to budge and they are hung up on the point of ownership of guns being legal, this temoves that point. What say, gun nuts? Want to propose a workable solution? Or do you want the worst?
32
@ 29, everyone has gone into minute detail regarding these claims. Stats from the period of the previous assault weapon ban have been posted on Slog threads. You're a true believer and will not be dissuaded by any fact, so pardon me if I don't waste my time on you. (Maybe you should create another sock puppet, one that can remain reasonable, and I'll address that one instead.)
@ 28, I just related (@25) how close I came to the Aurora shooting. Not me personally? I would still be a victim if the best man at my wedding had gone ahead and been killed at the Aurora theater.
Statistically, I can do something about lightning (not be caught out on a golf course when a storm comes along, or seek shelter when it does), or a bus (keep my wits about me and not step into traffic). The lottery? Maybe I should play it more.
But mass shootings affect way more people than the dead. I live about seven miles from Columbine High School, and it affected friends of mine who went there, even though they graduated years before it happened. It shatters communities. That's not MSM hyperbole, that's the truth. Lightning strikes don't do that.
@ 28, I just related (@25) how close I came to the Aurora shooting. Not me personally? I would still be a victim if the best man at my wedding had gone ahead and been killed at the Aurora theater.
Statistically, I can do something about lightning (not be caught out on a golf course when a storm comes along, or seek shelter when it does), or a bus (keep my wits about me and not step into traffic). The lottery? Maybe I should play it more.
But mass shootings affect way more people than the dead. I live about seven miles from Columbine High School, and it affected friends of mine who went there, even though they graduated years before it happened. It shatters communities. That's not MSM hyperbole, that's the truth. Lightning strikes don't do that.
33
@30: You don't even have enough votes to pass an assault rifle ban in a Democrat-controlled Senate. Dream on. You are so full of shit.
34
@32
"You're a true believer and will not be dissuaded by any fact, so pardon me if I don't waste my time on you."
So your argument is that you aren't going to post any links to support your claims because it isn't worth your time to support your claims.
Fine.
But that does mean that your claims are unsupported.
Meanwhile, your claim that waiting periods have an effect on suicides is easily disproved.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
It doesn't get much easier to get a gun than in Texas (no waiting period).
It doesn't get much harder to get a gun than in California (10 day waiting period).
I can provide supporting material for my claims.
You cannot.
"You're a true believer and will not be dissuaded by any fact, so pardon me if I don't waste my time on you."
So your argument is that you aren't going to post any links to support your claims because it isn't worth your time to support your claims.
Fine.
But that does mean that your claims are unsupported.
Meanwhile, your claim that waiting periods have an effect on suicides is easily disproved.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
It doesn't get much easier to get a gun than in Texas (no waiting period).
It doesn't get much harder to get a gun than in California (10 day waiting period).
I can provide supporting material for my claims.
You cannot.
35
@ 34, "But that does mean that your claims are unsupported."
ROFLMAO.... No, it just means that you are very good at ignoring evidence that counters your position. You've been doing it for months. You're doing it right now, with that statement.
I wonder... can you NOT have the last word? Or are you going to post some meaningless thing for the thousandth time, like a sheep from "Animal Farm?"
ROFLMAO.... No, it just means that you are very good at ignoring evidence that counters your position. You've been doing it for months. You're doing it right now, with that statement.
I wonder... can you NOT have the last word? Or are you going to post some meaningless thing for the thousandth time, like a sheep from "Animal Farm?"
36
@35
Another post from you without any support for your claims other than you claiming that they're true.
"No, it just means that you are very good at ignoring evidence that counters your position."
You can make that claim all you want but that was your 6th post in this thread and you still have not provided any support for your claims.
You have time and inclination to post but neither the time nor inclination to provide support for your claims.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
It doesn't get much easier to get a gun than in Texas (no waiting period).
It doesn't get much harder to get a gun than in California (10 day waiting period).
And that shows that I have no such problems providing support for my claims.
Yet you are unable to do so.
Another post from you without any support for your claims other than you claiming that they're true.
"No, it just means that you are very good at ignoring evidence that counters your position."
You can make that claim all you want but that was your 6th post in this thread and you still have not provided any support for your claims.
You have time and inclination to post but neither the time nor inclination to provide support for your claims.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
It doesn't get much easier to get a gun than in Texas (no waiting period).
It doesn't get much harder to get a gun than in California (10 day waiting period).
And that shows that I have no such problems providing support for my claims.
Yet you are unable to do so.
37
@ 36, I won't provide any support because giving it to you won't do a damn thing. You're a dishonest person, and all anyone needs to do to see that is to read your comment history.
So, thanks for the bleating. But you've lost, because the facts are against you.
So, thanks for the bleating. But you've lost, because the facts are against you.
38
I'd think all y'all 2nd Am. Absolutists would be super happy this morning, but you all still seem cranky. YOU WON - Reid buried a new AWB because he knew it would lose. The carnage will continue unabated, without even a gesture from the government to try and give the deaths of those children some meaning. Don't you want to head to the gun range to celebrate?
39
@37
"I won't provide any support because giving it to you won't do a damn thing."
That is your 7th post in this thread.
And that is the 3rd post where you claim that there is some reason that you refuse to link to supporting material.
You can make all the claims you want to but the end result is that your claims are unsupported.
Meanwhile, I have no such problems providing supporting links for my claims.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
It doesn't get much easier to get a gun than in Texas (no waiting period).
It doesn't get much harder to get a gun than in California (10 day waiting period).
"I won't provide any support because giving it to you won't do a damn thing."
That is your 7th post in this thread.
And that is the 3rd post where you claim that there is some reason that you refuse to link to supporting material.
You can make all the claims you want to but the end result is that your claims are unsupported.
Meanwhile, I have no such problems providing supporting links for my claims.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
It doesn't get much easier to get a gun than in Texas (no waiting period).
It doesn't get much harder to get a gun than in California (10 day waiting period).
40
@38: No, it's a shit day, because it's been three months and (with very few exceptions) we've done almost precisely nothing about the real issues around violence.
Very few schools and places where kids congregate have taken concrete steps (like security doors, cameras, and guards used by basically every medium and large corporation or government entity in the country/world) to stop the next crazed asshole who wants to be the most famous person in the world.
Drugs are still illegal and providing enormous cash flow to criminals, just like during Prohibition.
Tens of thousands of violent criminals are going about their business of shooting and killing each other on the streets while the aforementioned drug war victims sit in cells.
I've not seen anything done to increase suicide prevention for those at risk, despite there being proven strategies that work.
Maybe now that the political grandstanding is dying down we could address some of those items?
Very few schools and places where kids congregate have taken concrete steps (like security doors, cameras, and guards used by basically every medium and large corporation or government entity in the country/world) to stop the next crazed asshole who wants to be the most famous person in the world.
Drugs are still illegal and providing enormous cash flow to criminals, just like during Prohibition.
Tens of thousands of violent criminals are going about their business of shooting and killing each other on the streets while the aforementioned drug war victims sit in cells.
I've not seen anything done to increase suicide prevention for those at risk, despite there being proven strategies that work.
Maybe now that the political grandstanding is dying down we could address some of those items?
43
@42
And that is your 8th post in this thread.
And, approximately, the 4th post where you've refused to provide any links to support your claims.
That's 50% of your posts here claiming that there is some reason you cannot post references here.
Meanwhile I have no such problems.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
It doesn't get much easier to get a gun than in Texas (no waiting period).
It doesn't get much harder to get a gun than in California (10 day waiting period).
And, again, approximately 50% of your posts in this thread are you claiming that you will not post facts in this thread.
And that is your 8th post in this thread.
And, approximately, the 4th post where you've refused to provide any links to support your claims.
That's 50% of your posts here claiming that there is some reason you cannot post references here.
Meanwhile I have no such problems.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
It doesn't get much easier to get a gun than in Texas (no waiting period).
It doesn't get much harder to get a gun than in California (10 day waiting period).
And, again, approximately 50% of your posts in this thread are you claiming that you will not post facts in this thread.
44
@ 43, and that's your seventh. AND... all you've provided is the same stat that doesn't prove your case.
Wash, rinse, rebleat.
Wash, rinse, rebleat.
45
@39: It makes me sad when people who have no idea how to deal with data sets start making conclusions with it. Why didn't you compare Texas with Washington, D.C.? And why did you use Texas, and not Wyoming or Alaska (both of which have more than twice the suicide rate of California)? You suck at this.
Note: I'm not making conclusions. I'm not stupid enough to do so when I haven't eliminated all of the independent variables (such as why suicide rates are higher in rural areas than urban ones). But I can still show that your logic is flawed and that you are cherry-picking data (which you still do poorly, since California has a lower suicide rate than Texas).
Note: I'm not making conclusions. I'm not stupid enough to do so when I haven't eliminated all of the independent variables (such as why suicide rates are higher in rural areas than urban ones). But I can still show that your logic is flawed and that you are cherry-picking data (which you still do poorly, since California has a lower suicide rate than Texas).
46
@44
And that is your 9th post in this thread.
And, approximately, the 5th post where you've refused to provide any links to support your claims.
That's 55% of your posts here claiming that there is some reason you cannot post references here.
"... all you've provided is the same stat that doesn't prove your case."
Yes it does.
Waiting periods do not affect the suicide rate.
California has a waiting period of 10 days.
Texas has a waiting period of 0 days.
Yet Texas is ranked almost the same as California in suicide rate.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
So I predict that this "discussion" will be you continuing to refuse to provide any links while arguing that the difference between Texas and California does not exist (0 days vs 10 days) and/or that the similar ranking (44th vs 41st out of 51) does not exist.
And that is your 9th post in this thread.
And, approximately, the 5th post where you've refused to provide any links to support your claims.
That's 55% of your posts here claiming that there is some reason you cannot post references here.
"... all you've provided is the same stat that doesn't prove your case."
Yes it does.
Waiting periods do not affect the suicide rate.
California has a waiting period of 10 days.
Texas has a waiting period of 0 days.
Yet Texas is ranked almost the same as California in suicide rate.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
So I predict that this "discussion" will be you continuing to refuse to provide any links while arguing that the difference between Texas and California does not exist (0 days vs 10 days) and/or that the similar ranking (44th vs 41st out of 51) does not exist.
47
@46:
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Wyoming 131 563,626 23.2 1
District of Columbia 41 601,723 6.8 51
Why does Wyoming have 3.4 times the suicide rate of D.C.? You don't know? Then perhaps you should stop citing data that you don't understand!
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Wyoming 131 563,626 23.2 1
District of Columbia 41 601,723 6.8 51
Why does Wyoming have 3.4 times the suicide rate of D.C.? You don't know? Then perhaps you should stop citing data that you don't understand!
49
@47
It's okay that you're upset.
The facts do not match what you want them to.
But try to understand what is being said rather than what you want to be said.
Is that okay? Would you do that?
Those stats show that the suicide rate is not affected by a waiting period for guns.
Is that okay with you?
It's okay that you're upset.
The facts do not match what you want them to.
But try to understand what is being said rather than what you want to be said.
Is that okay? Would you do that?
Those stats show that the suicide rate is not affected by a waiting period for guns.
Is that okay with you?
51
@49: Which stats? Your cherry-picked ones that don't account for independent variables? Or my cherry-picked ones that don't account for independent variables? You don't get it. You can't pick two arbitrary values out of a data set and draw a conclusion. Math doesn't work that way. If you used my cherry-picked values (D.C. with a 10 day waiting period and Wyoming with none), you would come to the opposite conclusion to the one that you are repeating over and over.
I can only assume that such naivety in a conclusion indicates that you have a gross misunderstanding of statistics and how statistics are used to draw conclusions. Math is hard. Don't try it without the proper training.
I can only assume that such naivety in a conclusion indicates that you have a gross misunderstanding of statistics and how statistics are used to draw conclusions. Math is hard. Don't try it without the proper training.
52
@ 46, actually, this "discussion" (rofl...) will end when I stop responding. (It won't end when you stop responding, because you just have to have the last word.) I intend to do that now, because when even the other sloggers on your side don't step up to support you, it shows that you really have a whole lot of nothing. Someone else (like delirian) can waste their time showing you up (as he does with little effor @ 47), and you can keep going "nuh uh!" like a six year old, and they'll be right and you'll be wrong.
You think having the last word makes you right, but it doesn't.
You think having the last word makes you right, but it doesn't.
53
I'm just going to leave this right here, along with the suggestion that people who do not understand statistics should not attempt to use statistics to make a point.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologica…
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecologica…
54
Appears my unbalanced friend is particularly unbalanced today.
Matt it isn't difficult to wind unbalanced up, easy really. If you are amused by watching him spin (as I sometimes am), by all means keep it up. If your trying to break through his stubborn irrationality, hoping to find the a rational mind, not going to happen.
@45/47 You do realize don't you that unbalanced will lock his jaws around a wax apple and insist until he starves to death that he has found real fruit.
Matt it isn't difficult to wind unbalanced up, easy really. If you are amused by watching him spin (as I sometimes am), by all means keep it up. If your trying to break through his stubborn irrationality, hoping to find the a rational mind, not going to happen.
@45/47 You do realize don't you that unbalanced will lock his jaws around a wax apple and insist until he starves to death that he has found real fruit.
55
@52
And that is your 10th post in this thread.
And your 6th post where you refuse to provide any substantiation for your claims.
So 60% of your posts in this thread have been you refusing to post references in this thread.
Meanwhile, I can post a reference showing that waiting periods do not have an impact on suicide rates.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Texas has no waiting period for gun sales (0 days).
California has a 10 day waiting period for gun sales (10 days).
And that is your 10th post in this thread.
And your 6th post where you refuse to provide any substantiation for your claims.
So 60% of your posts in this thread have been you refusing to post references in this thread.
Meanwhile, I can post a reference showing that waiting periods do not have an impact on suicide rates.
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Texas has no waiting period for gun sales (0 days).
California has a 10 day waiting period for gun sales (10 days).
56
@ 54, I am amused, and at times fascinated by the mind that simply refuses to honestly accept the data and facts at hand, but it does get boring after a while.
57
@51
"Which stats? Your cherry-picked ones that don't account for independent variables?"
The reference I gave showed the stats for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
You seem to have used the term "cherry-picked" incorrectly.
Along with the term "independent variables".
"You can't pick two arbitrary values out of a data set and draw a conclusion."
And your usage of "arbitrary" also seems to be incorrect.
There was nothing "arbitrary" about those two items.
They were chosen because they illustrated the point that there is no relationship between waiting periods and suicide rates.
"I can only assume that such naivety in a conclusion indicates that you have a gross misunderstanding of statistics and how statistics are used to draw conclusions."
That might have more weight if you had used the terms correctly.
As it is, it appears that you are the one who does not understand statistics.
My point was that there is no relationship between waiting periods and suicide rates.
You are claiming that I am wrong because there is a relationship but that there is a 3rd factor (or multiple 3rd factors) that mitigate(s) that relationship. But you cannot show any evidence of that (those).
Do you want to dig out your old statistics text book and tell me what the term for that (those?) 3rd factor(s) would be?
Would you be able to do that?
"Which stats? Your cherry-picked ones that don't account for independent variables?"
The reference I gave showed the stats for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
You seem to have used the term "cherry-picked" incorrectly.
Along with the term "independent variables".
"You can't pick two arbitrary values out of a data set and draw a conclusion."
And your usage of "arbitrary" also seems to be incorrect.
There was nothing "arbitrary" about those two items.
They were chosen because they illustrated the point that there is no relationship between waiting periods and suicide rates.
"I can only assume that such naivety in a conclusion indicates that you have a gross misunderstanding of statistics and how statistics are used to draw conclusions."
That might have more weight if you had used the terms correctly.
As it is, it appears that you are the one who does not understand statistics.
My point was that there is no relationship between waiting periods and suicide rates.
You are claiming that I am wrong because there is a relationship but that there is a 3rd factor (or multiple 3rd factors) that mitigate(s) that relationship. But you cannot show any evidence of that (those).
Do you want to dig out your old statistics text book and tell me what the term for that (those?) 3rd factor(s) would be?
Would you be able to do that?
58
@57 I know this is pointless, but here you go. These people actually know what they're talking about.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18482…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/95726…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18482…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850…
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/95726…
59
@57:
You are claiming that I am wrong because there is a relationshipNo, I'm not. I'm not making any claim about the relationship. This is an imaginary argument you wished I was making because the real one is harder to respond to (or you have serious reading comprehension issues). I am only stating that nothing you have said supports the conclusion that there is no relationship. I am questioning your logic, not your argument. I cited D.C. and Wyoming to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim and hopefully to teach you a lesson on cherry-picking data. I had hoped that cognitive dissonance would set in and would force you to re-evaluate your claims.
60
@58
"I know this is pointless, ..."
It is not pointless.
It affords me an excellent teaching opportunity to attempt to correct a flaw in your education.
Simply posting a link is not sufficient to make a point.
You also have to provide the briefest possible quotation from that link showing exactly what you are referencing at that link.
And then you provide the summary showing exactly how that supports your claim.
Here is an example that I like to use:
https://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseactio…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Texas has no waiting period for gun sales (0 days).
California has a 10 day waiting period for gun sales (10 days).
Therefore, the waiting period has no impact on suicide rates.
Now it is your turn.
I think you can do this. Just try.
Quote from those links and show were they say that waiting periods impact suicide rates and what the rates are.
I think you can do this. Just try.
"I know this is pointless, ..."
It is not pointless.
It affords me an excellent teaching opportunity to attempt to correct a flaw in your education.
Simply posting a link is not sufficient to make a point.
You also have to provide the briefest possible quotation from that link showing exactly what you are referencing at that link.
And then you provide the summary showing exactly how that supports your claim.
Here is an example that I like to use:
https://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseactio…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Texas has no waiting period for gun sales (0 days).
California has a 10 day waiting period for gun sales (10 days).
Therefore, the waiting period has no impact on suicide rates.
Now it is your turn.
I think you can do this. Just try.
Quote from those links and show were they say that waiting periods impact suicide rates and what the rates are.
I think you can do this. Just try.
61
@59
"No, I'm not. I'm not making any claim about the relationship."
So you are okay with my point that such a relationship does not exist?
"I am only stating that nothing you have said supports the conclusion that there is no relationship."
Here's a link that seems to do exactly that:
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Texas has no waiting period for gun sales (0 days).
California has a 10 day waiting period for gun sales (10 days).
"I cited D.C. and Wyoming to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim and hopefully to teach you a lesson on cherry-picking data."
And you are again using "cherry-picking" incorrectly.
That link has statistics for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Is there some state that they did not include?
Which state would that be?
"No, I'm not. I'm not making any claim about the relationship."
So you are okay with my point that such a relationship does not exist?
"I am only stating that nothing you have said supports the conclusion that there is no relationship."
Here's a link that seems to do exactly that:
http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Texas has no waiting period for gun sales (0 days).
California has a 10 day waiting period for gun sales (10 days).
"I cited D.C. and Wyoming to demonstrate the absurdity of your claim and hopefully to teach you a lesson on cherry-picking data."
And you are again using "cherry-picking" incorrectly.
That link has statistics for all 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Is there some state that they did not include?
Which state would that be?
62
@60 No. I don't care if you can't be bothered to click a link or 3 and read abstracts from peer-reviewed scientific journals written by actual scientists. I think you can do this but I also think I may be giving you too much credit.
64
@62
"I don't care if ..."
Are you really sure that that is the real reason?
Are you?
And not because you didn't bother to read the material behind those links and were hoping that no one would ask you to be specific about what it is that you were claiming they supported?
Is that why you're refusing to quote them?
Because I can easily do that. Here, I'll show you how easy it is.
https://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseactio…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Texas has no waiting period for gun sales (0 days).
California has a 10 day waiting period for gun sales (10 days).
That was easy to do, wasn't it?
Can you do something that easy?
I think you can do it.
You don't have to be afraid any more.
"I don't care if ..."
Are you really sure that that is the real reason?
Are you?
And not because you didn't bother to read the material behind those links and were hoping that no one would ask you to be specific about what it is that you were claiming they supported?
Is that why you're refusing to quote them?
Because I can easily do that. Here, I'll show you how easy it is.
https://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseactio…
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Texas has no waiting period for gun sales (0 days).
California has a 10 day waiting period for gun sales (10 days).
That was easy to do, wasn't it?
Can you do something that easy?
I think you can do it.
You don't have to be afraid any more.
65
Alright my Unbalanced friend, I've some time to kill.
Blips links.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18482…
RESULTS:
Performing local-level background checks was associated with a 27%-lower firearm suicide rate (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.73, 95% CI=0.60, 0.89) and a 22%-lower homicide rate (IRR=0.78, 95% CI=0.61, 1.01) in adults>or=21 years.
CONCLUSIONS:
Using local-level agencies to perform firearm background checks is associated with reduced rates of firearm suicide and homicide. Methods to increase local-level agency background checks, such as authorizing local police or sheriff's departments to conduct them, or developing the capability to share local-level records with federal databases, should be evaluated as a means of reducing firearm deaths.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850…
RESULTS:
More background checks are associated with fewer homicide (IRR:0.93, 95% CI:0.91-0.96) and suicide (IRR:0.98, 95% CI:0.96-1.00) deaths. Firearm homicide deaths are lower when states have checks for restraining orders (IRR:0.87, 95% CI:0.79-0.95) and fugitive status (IRR:0.79, 95% CI:0.72-0.88). Firearm suicide deaths are lower when states have background checks for mental illness (IRR:0.96, 95% CI:0.92-0.99), fugitive status (IRR:0.95, 95% CI:0.90-0.99) and misdemeanors (IRR:0.95, 95% CI:0.92-1.00). It does not appear that reductions in firearm deaths are offset by increases in non-firearm violent deaths.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/95726…
The results show that gun ownership has a stronger impact on firearm suicides than homicides.
Your link my unbalanced friend.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/95726…
Just raw statistics no analysis. Easy to "cherry pick" from.
See the point Delrain was trying to make yet? Didn't think so, enjoy your wax apple, it is still not a real apple.
More...
Blips links.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18482…
RESULTS:
Performing local-level background checks was associated with a 27%-lower firearm suicide rate (incidence rate ratio [IRR]=0.73, 95% CI=0.60, 0.89) and a 22%-lower homicide rate (IRR=0.78, 95% CI=0.61, 1.01) in adults>or=21 years.
CONCLUSIONS:
Using local-level agencies to perform firearm background checks is associated with reduced rates of firearm suicide and homicide. Methods to increase local-level agency background checks, such as authorizing local police or sheriff's departments to conduct them, or developing the capability to share local-level records with federal databases, should be evaluated as a means of reducing firearm deaths.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22850…
RESULTS:
More background checks are associated with fewer homicide (IRR:0.93, 95% CI:0.91-0.96) and suicide (IRR:0.98, 95% CI:0.96-1.00) deaths. Firearm homicide deaths are lower when states have checks for restraining orders (IRR:0.87, 95% CI:0.79-0.95) and fugitive status (IRR:0.79, 95% CI:0.72-0.88). Firearm suicide deaths are lower when states have background checks for mental illness (IRR:0.96, 95% CI:0.92-0.99), fugitive status (IRR:0.95, 95% CI:0.90-0.99) and misdemeanors (IRR:0.95, 95% CI:0.92-1.00). It does not appear that reductions in firearm deaths are offset by increases in non-firearm violent deaths.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/95726…
The results show that gun ownership has a stronger impact on firearm suicides than homicides.
Your link my unbalanced friend.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/95726…
Just raw statistics no analysis. Easy to "cherry pick" from.
See the point Delrain was trying to make yet? Didn't think so, enjoy your wax apple, it is still not a real apple.
66
@61:
So you are okay with my point that such a relationship does not exist?If you can demonstrate that without cherry-picking data, then fine. And I am using cherry-picking correctly:
cherry-pick (third-person singular simple present cherry-picks, present participle cherry-picking, simple past and past participle cherry-picked)I know that you like repeating yourself, but at what point do your responses classify as crap-flooding the forum?
(idiomatic) To pick out the best, or most desirable items from a list or group, especially to obtain some advantage or to present something in the best possible light.
From all the available statistics, the politician cherry-picked only those that backed up his ideas.
67
@66
"If you can demonstrate that without cherry-picking data, then fine."
I'm fine with doing that but I'm going to have to ask you, again, which states were not included in that list?
I thought that there were 50 states (and the District of Columbia) and that list seems to have all of them.
So which states were not included in my link?
Here, I'll provide it again in case you need to go through it to see which states are missing.
https://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseactio…
Now, looking at that list it seems apparent that no such link between suicide and waiting periods exist.
But you say that that is not correct.
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Well it does look that it is correct.
"If you can demonstrate that without cherry-picking data, then fine."
I'm fine with doing that but I'm going to have to ask you, again, which states were not included in that list?
I thought that there were 50 states (and the District of Columbia) and that list seems to have all of them.
So which states were not included in my link?
Here, I'll provide it again in case you need to go through it to see which states are missing.
https://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseactio…
Now, looking at that list it seems apparent that no such link between suicide and waiting periods exist.
But you say that that is not correct.
State - Number of Suicides - Population - Rate - Rank
Texas - 2,891 - 25,145,561 - 11.5 - 41
California - 3,913 - 37,253,956 - 10.5 - 44
Well it does look that it is correct.
68
Now, looking at that list it seems apparent that no such link between suicide and waiting periods exist.Yes, but that is only because you are not very smart. I hate to have to say it, but at this point in your life it probably isn't that much of a surprise to you. Just let the people who actually understand statistics discuss it like adults, and you can continue crap-flooding in the kids room.
But you say that that is not correct.
Well it does look that it is correct.
69
@68
"Yes, but that is only because you are not very smart."
Okay, let me see if I have this correct.
I say that there is no relationship between X and Y.
In order to support that, I provide a link showing all instances of X.
I then reference that link to show that Xsub1 and Xsub2 do not meet the criteria for a relationship via Y.
You claim that I am "cherry-picking" because my example that shows that there is not a relationship (Xsub1 and Xsub2) did not also include an instance where a relationship appears to exist (Xsub3 and Xsub4).
:)
"Just let the people who actually understand statistics discuss it like adults, ..."
Seriously?
Because you're the one who seems to think that it is "cherry-picking" to show an example that disproves the claim of relationship (as in X varies in relation to Y).
You didn't know that, did you?
"Yes, but that is only because you are not very smart."
Okay, let me see if I have this correct.
I say that there is no relationship between X and Y.
In order to support that, I provide a link showing all instances of X.
I then reference that link to show that Xsub1 and Xsub2 do not meet the criteria for a relationship via Y.
You claim that I am "cherry-picking" because my example that shows that there is not a relationship (Xsub1 and Xsub2) did not also include an instance where a relationship appears to exist (Xsub3 and Xsub4).
:)
"Just let the people who actually understand statistics discuss it like adults, ..."
Seriously?
Because you're the one who seems to think that it is "cherry-picking" to show an example that disproves the claim of relationship (as in X varies in relation to Y).
You didn't know that, did you?
70
@69: That example would work in simple cases where the independent variables were accounted for (or were not statistically significant). For example, if I said that gravity is always an attractive force, but found an example where gravity was actually repulsive (not accounted for by other forces), I could claim that the theory of gravitation was incorrect. But if there were other independent factors that I didn't account for (perhaps the two bodies I tested were both positively charged), then my conclusion would be wrong. This is what you are doing. Your experiment is flawed. Your goal should have been to tell the rest of us that we couldn't discount the null hypothesis based on this data (that there is no correlation). This would have defeated your point, since you were the one to provide the data, but whatever. I would have agreed with that statement. Instead, you are trying to prove the null hypothesis.
71
@70
"But if there were other independent factors that I didn't account for (perhaps the two bodies I tested were both positively charged), then my conclusion would be wrong."
So you claim that I am wrong in stating that there is no relationship based upon Xsub1 and Xsub2 because something that you cannot identify but that might exist would possibly alter the relationship equation such that Ysub1 and Ysub2 and ... Ysub51 all form a nice line/curve.
But you cannot identify that.
And it might do what you claim it would do.
Possibly.
Okay, I believe I can show exactly how wrong you are.
Let us call this unknown quantity that you have speculated may possibly exist with the properties that you have postulated, Jesus.
So, take the data I've already provided.
https://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseactio…
Now adjust the waiting period for each X by factoring in Jesus and now all the associated Y values form a nice line/curve.
But it has to be such that they do not also form a similar line/curve WITHOUT Jesus.
Because, as stated, the relationship is waiting time.
Jesus will have to work hard because while Texas is 41st with no waiting period, Wyoming is 1st with no waiting period.
"But if there were other independent factors that I didn't account for (perhaps the two bodies I tested were both positively charged), then my conclusion would be wrong."
So you claim that I am wrong in stating that there is no relationship based upon Xsub1 and Xsub2 because something that you cannot identify but that might exist would possibly alter the relationship equation such that Ysub1 and Ysub2 and ... Ysub51 all form a nice line/curve.
But you cannot identify that.
And it might do what you claim it would do.
Possibly.
Okay, I believe I can show exactly how wrong you are.
Let us call this unknown quantity that you have speculated may possibly exist with the properties that you have postulated, Jesus.
So, take the data I've already provided.
https://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseactio…
Now adjust the waiting period for each X by factoring in Jesus and now all the associated Y values form a nice line/curve.
But it has to be such that they do not also form a similar line/curve WITHOUT Jesus.
Because, as stated, the relationship is waiting time.
Jesus will have to work hard because while Texas is 41st with no waiting period, Wyoming is 1st with no waiting period.
72
Ugh.
TO THE ANTI-GUN ZEALOTS:
I've been doing this bullshit kabuke for months now on the SLOG and happened to be the first comment on this thread.
Again, will somebody please explain, in detail, how any newly-proposed 'gun-control' provisions would have prevented any mass-shooting in the last 30 years?
When I say specific, I mean specific.
Meaning,
1) State your goal.
2) State your solution.
3) Explain how your solution theoretically resolves your goal.
4) Specifically state how your solution would be implemented and enforced in the real world.
5) Given 'real-world' conditions, and I'd like to think we're dealing with the real world here... how do you determine the efficacy of your solution? Who determines what 'success' is?
6) What if it doesn't work?
7) What if it does?
I haven't seen anything specific from any anti-gun zealot other than utopian platitudes stated at the most emotional and visceral level.
I want to know, point-by-point, how each piece of 'meaningful gun legislation' would have prevented Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech and Columbine. Or any other mass shooting, for that matter.
Connect the goddamn dots for me and I'll listen to what you have to say. State your case and make it well. Make it specific. I'll listen.
'Guns are bad and scary' isn't a position, it's an emotion and a religion on the SLOG, no different than CPAC attendees wailing about abortion.
If your legislation doesn't prevent these tragedies, then it isn't meaningful. It's just more feel-good bullshit that advances your notion that guns are scary and if you don't want one, then nobody should have them either.
TO THE ANTI-GUN ZEALOTS:
I've been doing this bullshit kabuke for months now on the SLOG and happened to be the first comment on this thread.
Again, will somebody please explain, in detail, how any newly-proposed 'gun-control' provisions would have prevented any mass-shooting in the last 30 years?
When I say specific, I mean specific.
Meaning,
1) State your goal.
2) State your solution.
3) Explain how your solution theoretically resolves your goal.
4) Specifically state how your solution would be implemented and enforced in the real world.
5) Given 'real-world' conditions, and I'd like to think we're dealing with the real world here... how do you determine the efficacy of your solution? Who determines what 'success' is?
6) What if it doesn't work?
7) What if it does?
I haven't seen anything specific from any anti-gun zealot other than utopian platitudes stated at the most emotional and visceral level.
I want to know, point-by-point, how each piece of 'meaningful gun legislation' would have prevented Sandy Hook, Aurora, Virginia Tech and Columbine. Or any other mass shooting, for that matter.
Connect the goddamn dots for me and I'll listen to what you have to say. State your case and make it well. Make it specific. I'll listen.
'Guns are bad and scary' isn't a position, it's an emotion and a religion on the SLOG, no different than CPAC attendees wailing about abortion.
If your legislation doesn't prevent these tragedies, then it isn't meaningful. It's just more feel-good bullshit that advances your notion that guns are scary and if you don't want one, then nobody should have them either.
73
To add, I'm a liberal and I've yet to have another liberal talk with me about the nuts and bolts of their latest ban-of-the-week.
Let's take universal background checks for example, not a single anti-gun SLOGger has made a case for how it would have prevented mass shootings.
I'm done with my post-script now.
Please, somebody connect the dots for me with something more than talking points.
Let's take universal background checks for example, not a single anti-gun SLOGger has made a case for how it would have prevented mass shootings.
I'm done with my post-script now.
Please, somebody connect the dots for me with something more than talking points.
74
@73 I posted links to 3 scientific, peer-reviewed studies above (58) that show how background checks reduce homicide and suicide rates, and how some background checks are more effective than others. It's not a matter of banning guns or eliminating gun violence altogether, but of simple, common sense reforms that reduce violence and death by keeping guns out of the wrong hands, while respecting the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. But if your metric for success is elminating all gun deaths, you will be forever disappointed.
75
@71: Good grief. You cite my example of a simply falsifiable experiment to support your bullshit reasoning on a more complex experiment where the best you can hope for is to discount the null hypothesis? And then you use your bullshit unnormalized data? For fuck's sake! In any case, it still doesn't matter because you are still trying to prove the null hypothesis. It can't be done.
If you are angry at others for not disproving the null hypothesis, that is fine. Ask them to provide data that supports that conclusion (like the NIH references above). But you can't grab your own set of data and claim that you can prove the null hypothesis!
Here's a hint: you need to normalize (take into account other things that affect suicide rates such as socioeconomic factors, cultural factors, and demographic factors) your set before you can start drawing conclusions. Even then, there will be outliers, because that is how statistics works. The best you can say is that there is a statistical correlation or there isn't enough evidence to support that.
If you are angry at others for not disproving the null hypothesis, that is fine. Ask them to provide data that supports that conclusion (like the NIH references above). But you can't grab your own set of data and claim that you can prove the null hypothesis!
Here's a hint: you need to normalize (take into account other things that affect suicide rates such as socioeconomic factors, cultural factors, and demographic factors) your set before you can start drawing conclusions. Even then, there will be outliers, because that is how statistics works. The best you can say is that there is a statistical correlation or there isn't enough evidence to support that.
76
@72:
1) State your goal.
I have multiple goal levels. The initial goal level is to ignore mass shootings and focus on suicides, DV, and common gun crime because they account for the most deaths.
2) State your solution.
End the War on Drugs. Register all firearms. Eliminate all loopholes for gun purchases that don't require background checks (gun shows and private sellers). Require all gun owners to be licensed and their guns to be linked to the license. Lending will require a permit. A firearm owner will be civilly liable to anything that happens with their firearm, even if it is lost or stolen, so insurance is mandatory. Special permits will be required for any firearm that can be concealed (must demonstrate a "need to own"). Severe penalties will be leveraged against anyone who is caught with a firearm that isn't properly licensed. Additionally, ammo must be tagged with identifiers, and purchases must be logged (and only to individuals with permits). In the event that a registered gun owner is charged with a violent misdemeanor, felony, or has a restraining order filed, the police will execute a search warrant to remove all guns registered to the individual that weren't surrendered per the registry database or other pertinent information provided by sources.
3) Explain how your solution theoretically resolves your goal.
It provides police with tracking information on all registered firearms, it will provide a filtering effect on illegal firearms, and any registered firearm used in a crime can be tracked up to the last person registered to it (who will be civilly liable and face criminal charges in the case of unlawful sales or lending). Police will also be able to find guns from a former "law abiding citizen" when that person becomes violent. Handguns will not be generally allowed.
4) Specifically state how your solution would be implemented and enforced in the real world.
It would be enforced as police encounter crimes and individuals during their normal work. The police would only use these laws if they had probable cause or were investigating a crime.
5) Given 'real-world' conditions, and I'd like to think we're dealing with the real world here... how do you determine the efficacy of your solution? Who determines what 'success' is?
Success is the reduction in DV deaths, criminal deaths, suicides, and a reduction over time in the number of illegal guns seized. The reduction must be statistically significant and not accounted for due to other socio-economic or demographic changes. The timeline for effectiveness would be several decades.
6) What if it doesn't work?
Re-evaluate. Fund university studies to determine the efficacy.
7) What if it does?
Re-evaluate. Fund university studies to determine the efficacy.
More...
1) State your goal.
I have multiple goal levels. The initial goal level is to ignore mass shootings and focus on suicides, DV, and common gun crime because they account for the most deaths.
2) State your solution.
End the War on Drugs. Register all firearms. Eliminate all loopholes for gun purchases that don't require background checks (gun shows and private sellers). Require all gun owners to be licensed and their guns to be linked to the license. Lending will require a permit. A firearm owner will be civilly liable to anything that happens with their firearm, even if it is lost or stolen, so insurance is mandatory. Special permits will be required for any firearm that can be concealed (must demonstrate a "need to own"). Severe penalties will be leveraged against anyone who is caught with a firearm that isn't properly licensed. Additionally, ammo must be tagged with identifiers, and purchases must be logged (and only to individuals with permits). In the event that a registered gun owner is charged with a violent misdemeanor, felony, or has a restraining order filed, the police will execute a search warrant to remove all guns registered to the individual that weren't surrendered per the registry database or other pertinent information provided by sources.
3) Explain how your solution theoretically resolves your goal.
It provides police with tracking information on all registered firearms, it will provide a filtering effect on illegal firearms, and any registered firearm used in a crime can be tracked up to the last person registered to it (who will be civilly liable and face criminal charges in the case of unlawful sales or lending). Police will also be able to find guns from a former "law abiding citizen" when that person becomes violent. Handguns will not be generally allowed.
4) Specifically state how your solution would be implemented and enforced in the real world.
It would be enforced as police encounter crimes and individuals during their normal work. The police would only use these laws if they had probable cause or were investigating a crime.
5) Given 'real-world' conditions, and I'd like to think we're dealing with the real world here... how do you determine the efficacy of your solution? Who determines what 'success' is?
Success is the reduction in DV deaths, criminal deaths, suicides, and a reduction over time in the number of illegal guns seized. The reduction must be statistically significant and not accounted for due to other socio-economic or demographic changes. The timeline for effectiveness would be several decades.
6) What if it doesn't work?
Re-evaluate. Fund university studies to determine the efficacy.
7) What if it does?
Re-evaluate. Fund university studies to determine the efficacy.
77
@75
"You cite my example of a simply falsifiable experiment to support your bullshit reasoning on a more complex experiment where the best you can hope for is to discount the null hypothesis?"
Here are the words and phrases that you used incorrectly in that sentence:
cite
simply falsifiable experiment
bullshit
complex experiment
discount
null hypothesis
"In any case, it still doesn't matter because you are still trying to prove the null hypothesis. It can't be done."
No.
I am showing the flaws in your understanding of statistics.
You are claiming that there might be an unknown factor that could turn that jumble of YsubN into a line or curve.
Maybe I should have labeled it "Satan" because without "Satan" then the YsubN results would be a line or curve.
Possibly.
Maybe.
So, the original claim of a causal relationship is, in your opinion, not disproven because I did not account for the possibility that "Satan" might be obscuring the data that I am "cherry-picking" for all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).
"You cite my example of a simply falsifiable experiment to support your bullshit reasoning on a more complex experiment where the best you can hope for is to discount the null hypothesis?"
Here are the words and phrases that you used incorrectly in that sentence:
cite
simply falsifiable experiment
bullshit
complex experiment
discount
null hypothesis
"In any case, it still doesn't matter because you are still trying to prove the null hypothesis. It can't be done."
No.
I am showing the flaws in your understanding of statistics.
You are claiming that there might be an unknown factor that could turn that jumble of YsubN into a line or curve.
Maybe I should have labeled it "Satan" because without "Satan" then the YsubN results would be a line or curve.
Possibly.
Maybe.
So, the original claim of a causal relationship is, in your opinion, not disproven because I did not account for the possibility that "Satan" might be obscuring the data that I am "cherry-picking" for all 50 states (and the District of Columbia).
78
Oh my God, can't someone just run ANOVA on the state suicide rates vs. gun ownership stats and be done with it? WE HAVE STATISTICAL METHODS FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT EFFECT, GUYS.
82
@81: Yes, but I'm also proficient at running gels, using air scribes, and running chemical syntheses.
84
Of course the gun lobby was going to lose. They're just as bad as the N.R.A.
The N.R.A. is a corrupt, slimy, insensitive organization that fosters paranoia. The gun control lobby is arrogant, insular, self-righteous, insensitive, and terminally condescending. Each side's idea of a "national conversation about guns" is that everyone should shut up while they lecture.
When you have two opposing groups each as bad as the other, it boils down to political muscle. The N.R.A. has a lot more of it.
The N.R.A. is a corrupt, slimy, insensitive organization that fosters paranoia. The gun control lobby is arrogant, insular, self-righteous, insensitive, and terminally condescending. Each side's idea of a "national conversation about guns" is that everyone should shut up while they lecture.
When you have two opposing groups each as bad as the other, it boils down to political muscle. The N.R.A. has a lot more of it.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
An I-5 Bridge Over the Skagit River Has Collapsed by Paul Constant
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
Did You Steal Our Unpaid Intern's Camera? by Goldy
-
Usually When I'm Sent a Photoshopped Image of a Gun Pointed At Me... by Dan Savage
-
The Only Thing More Tragic than a Bridge Collapse Would Be a 10 Cent a Gallon Increase in the Gas Tax by Goldy
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Star Trek Releases Deleted Scene of Benedict Cumberbatch Showering to Counter Claims of Sexism by Cienna Madrid
-
Boy Scouts Lift Ban on Gay Members by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Not A Prude... And Not Just Not That... by Dan Savage
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (85) RSS