kallend 1,677 #101 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Considering that you have admitted to having NO expertise in statistics and finally admitted using the wrong table in the FBI's UCR for one of your recent arguments, it seems to me that trusting a bunch of peer reviewed epidemiological studies over yours is quite justified. So in other words...you can't refute the numbers so you'll try to put me in a bad light instead - your usual tactics, got it. OK. You have produced a bunch of raw numbers with no attempt at statistical analysis or correction for known confounding factors whatsoever. Your numbers are, therefore, quite meaningless. You then proceeded to badmouth several independent sophisticated analyses by professionals in the field without any actual critique of their methodology except to dismiss them as from a "*MEDICAL* journal" (post #70, this thread) and hence biased. You grouse about ad hominem yet you make an ad medentes or "ad proceres" attack. Will that do?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #102 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Considering that you have admitted to having NO expertise in statistics and finally admitted using the wrong table in the FBI's UCR for one of your recent arguments, it seems to me that trusting a bunch of peer reviewed epidemiological studies over yours is quite justified. So in other words...you can't refute the numbers so you'll try to put me in a bad light instead - your usual tactics, got it. OK. You have produced a bunch of raw numbers with no attempt at statistical analysis or correction for known confounding factors whatsoever. Your numbers are, therefore, quite meaningless. You then proceeded to badmouth several independent sophisticated analyses by professionals in the field without any actual critique of their methodology except to dismiss them as from a "*MEDICAL* journal" and hence biased. Will that do? Ah - now we get down to the nub of it - where is the "statistical analysis" of the number YOU provided up-thread for murder rates for the US and European countries, professor? Could it be that you don't seem to require such stringent efforts when the numbers suit YOU? No, *that* couldn't be it at ALL, now could it? Fact: Your "expert" panel stipulates that gun ownership has a strong correlative effect in the number of murders. Quote A new study published in the journal Social Science and Medicine by a team of Harvard researchers finds a strong correlation between state-wide homicide rates and the fraction of households in a state that own firearms. Does the above look familiar? I provided data that shows that the state with the highest amount of gun ownership has a murder rate that is 6.5% that of DC. Feel free to play with the numbers however you wish to try to prove how that somehow proves that straight gun ownership is responsible for a high murder rate.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #103 July 10, 2008 Quote According to Outdoor Life (not exactly a rabid anti-gun source), accidental shooting deaths dropped to 700 in 2004. According to the FBI (generally reliable), justifiable shooting homicides by private citizens in the same year were 170. So apparently you are over 4 times as likely to be shot dead accidentally as to shoot a felon. No massaging needed, just the facts, ma'am. Usually you're not so sloppy with language. You're 4 times more like to be shot dead accidentally as to fatally shoot a felon. And if your numbers are true (more on that later), that would be true. But the desire on most people's mind is not to kill the attacker, but to survive the process - injuring the attacker or scaring him off are acceptable outcomes. And the number of those events vastly exceeds 700, whether you take the low ball or the high ball guestimates. The 170 value is also highly suspect - likely counting only events that the police investigate and make a determination on. Unlikely to cover the obvious cases, or the unreported ones (criminal found dead in alley) because the victim wasn't supposed to have a gun due to laws. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #104 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote If the guns were gone, people would substitute. Knives seem popular in the UK. Want to compare homicide rates between the USA, UK, Australia and Canada then, to see if knives are substituted? Sure. Feel free to investigate murder rates in UK and Australia since they banned all guns. (was it a total ban in AU, or just a deepening?) Homicide rates per 100,000: USA 5.7 (Non-gun 1.98) UK 2.03 Aus 1.28 Canada 1.85 Must be a shortage of knives in Canada, UK and Oz! Yes, that must be the reason. and usually you ARE so sloppy with answering the question. To hazard a guess at the substitution effect, you want to be examining the homicide rates of the UK over the past 20 years. Not comparing it to a different location. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #105 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Quote If the guns were gone, people would substitute. Knives seem popular in the UK. Want to compare homicide rates between the USA, UK, Australia and Canada then, to see if knives are substituted? Sure. Feel free to investigate murder rates in UK and Australia since they banned all guns. (was it a total ban in AU, or just a deepening?) Homicide rates per 100,000: USA 5.7 (Non-gun 1.98) UK 2.03 Aus 1.28 Canada 1.85 Must be a shortage of knives in Canada, UK and Oz! Yes, that must be the reason. and usually you ARE so sloppy with answering the question. To hazard a guess at the substitution effect, you want to be examining the homicide rates of the UK over the past 20 years. Not comparing it to a different location. It must suck always to have to come up with a spin on the data, because they don't match your emotional needs.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #106 July 10, 2008 Quote It must suck always to have to come up with a spin on the data, because they don't match your emotional needs. Irony score: INFINITEMike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #107 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuote According to Outdoor Life (not exactly a rabid anti-gun source), accidental shooting deaths dropped to 700 in 2004. According to the FBI (generally reliable), justifiable shooting homicides by private citizens in the same year were 170. So apparently you are over 4 times as likely to be shot dead accidentally as to shoot a felon. No massaging needed, just the facts, ma'am. Usually you're not so sloppy with language. You're 4 times more like to be shot dead accidentally as to fatally shoot a felon. And if your numbers are true (more on that later), that would be true. But the desire on most people's mind is not to kill the attacker, but to survive the process - injuring the attacker or scaring him off are acceptable outcomes. And the number of those events vastly exceeds 700, whether you take the low ball or the high ball guestimates. IF (big if) you paid attention to the thread, you would see that I was giving a direct answer to post #87 of this thread. You have chosen to speculate beyond the parameters set by piper17. Quote The 170 value is also highly suspect - likely counting only events that the police investigate and make a determination on. Unlikely to cover the obvious cases, or the unreported ones (criminal found dead in alley) because the victim wasn't supposed to have a gun due to laws. More speculation on your part. Take it up with the FBI if you don't like their numbers. Mnealtx has told us how wonderful their data are, in this very thread (which apparently you don't bother to read before hitting "post").... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #108 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote It must suck always to have to come up with a spin on the data, because they don't match your emotional needs. Irony score: INFINITE In your dreams. You haven't refuted a single item I've posted with any actual analysis. All you've done is cast aspersions on the authors of the articles for publishing in "*MEDICAL* journals".... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #109 July 10, 2008 Quote I provided data that shows that the state with the highest amount of gun ownership has a murder rate that is 6.5% that of DC. . That might be relevant if DC were a state. However, it isn't and all the spin you can put on it won't make it one... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #110 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote It must suck always to have to come up with a spin on the data, because they don't match your emotional needs. Irony score: INFINITE In your dreams. You haven't refuted a single item I've posted with any actual analysis. All you've done is cast aspersions on the authors of the articles for publishing in "*MEDICAL* journals". As YOU did, saying that I wasn't an expert statistician. As YOU did, bringing Lott into the discussion for a strawman. As YOU did, demanding peer review of Kleck's work - funny, that... you shut up on THAT tack quite quickly once you found out his work was supported in Criminology. So, I'm sure that SOMEwhere in there, you have a point? Other than the fact that FBI data is just fine WITHOUT any statistical analysis when it supports YOUR claims. Rather a hypocritical stance, professor.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #111 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote I provided data that shows that the state with the highest amount of gun ownership has a murder rate that is 6.5% that of DC. . That might be relevant if DC were a state. However, it isn't and all the spin you can put on it won't make it one And I quote: "Take it up with the FBI if you don't like their numbers" Maybe you can try the argument that it's DIFFERENT for Washington City because of all those Congresscritters and lawyers living there. If that doesn't work, maybe you can try the "they don't have a Senator" tack - I'm sure both those reasons have QUITE the effect of crime, you know.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #112 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote I provided data that shows that the state with the highest amount of gun ownership has a murder rate that is 6.5% that of DC. . That might be relevant if DC were a state. However, it isn't and all the spin you can put on it won't make it one And I quote: "Take it up with the FBI if you don't like their numbers" Maybe you can try the argument that it's DIFFERENT for Washington City because of all those Congresscritters and lawyers living there. If that doesn't work, maybe you can try the "they don't have a Senator" tack - I'm sure both those reasons have QUITE the effect of crime, you know. There are 50 stars on the flag, 100 senators (2 per state), and regardless of how you wriggle and squirm, DC is not represented either by a star on the flag or 2 senators. The extreme poverty of your argument is clearly shown when you have to resort to calling a city a state in order to make your point. Come back when you've learned the difference between cities and states and there might be something to discuss. "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Abraham Lincoln... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #113 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuote I provided data that shows that the state with the highest amount of gun ownership has a murder rate that is 6.5% that of DC. The extreme poverty of your argument is clearly shown when you have to resort to calling a city a state in order to make your point. I don't see him referring to DC as a state here. He compares the state with the highest gun ownership rate to DC. You want to make it about confusing states and districts because you have nothing else to work with. Well, no, you'll blame it all on Maryland, though that doesn't really help your argument. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #114 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteQuote So apparently you are over 4 times as likely to be shot dead accidentally as to shoot a felon. Usually you're not so sloppy with language. You're 4 times more like to be shot dead accidentally as to fatally shoot a felon. IF (big if) you paid attention to the thread, you would see that I was giving a direct answer to post #87 of this thread. You have chosen to speculate beyond the parameters set by piper17. Nope - I was addressing your inability or refusal to use proper English. Your statement was false, without the insertion of 'fatally.' Having a rough day, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #115 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote I provided data that shows that the state with the highest amount of gun ownership has a murder rate that is 6.5% that of DC. . That might be relevant if DC were a state. However, it isn't and all the spin you can put on it won't make it one And I quote: "Take it up with the FBI if you don't like their numbers" Maybe you can try the argument that it's DIFFERENT for Washington City because of all those Congresscritters and lawyers living there. If that doesn't work, maybe you can try the "they don't have a Senator" tack - I'm sure both those reasons have QUITE the effect of crime, you know. There are 50 stars on the flag, 100 senators (2 per state), and regardless of how you wriggle and squirm, DC is not represented either by a star on the flag or 2 senators. The extreme poverty of your argument is clearly shown when you have to resort to calling a city a state in order to make your point. Come back when you've learned the difference between cities and states and there might be something to discuss. "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg." Abraham Lincoln The extreme poverty of YOUR argument is clearly shown when you have to make outlandish claims of senatorial representation or demographic makeup to try and refute a point. As you said above (paraphrased) - "Come back when you've learned the difference between a city and a federal district. Why don't you just go ahead and list all those other cities that have direct congressional representation, professor - I'm sure we'd all LOVE to see that information. I would recommend auditing an American Government course, but you'd probably look pretty silly sitting in a high-school classrooom.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #116 July 10, 2008 QuoteIf I was not home, there would be pieces of a dead intruder scattered around on the floor. I saw this in the 3rd Indiana Jones movie. You need to hit the floor, then jump over the next blade and hit the floor rolling. I'd think the dead intruder pieces would upset the dog. And eventually start to smell bad. Which, of course, the dog would then like, dogs being dogs. And then the dog would roll around in the festering mess and you'd have to give him a bath and tell him "NO!" firmly and swat him on the nose. At which point, the dog would lick your face. And then promptly go to the rotting pile of dead intruder pieces and roll in it again. Dogs being dogs, you know. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
happythoughts 0 #117 July 10, 2008 The false dichotomy. The most interesting statistic is the one that is never recorded. Example - there are a few skydiving fatality databases, but no complete skydiving injury database because the govt does not require it to be recorded. Same thing with guns. Guns fatalities are recorded, and the circumstances. However, when local convenience stores are the targets of attempted robberies and the clerk prevents the robbery with a weapon, there is not statistical measurement available. Therefore, the statistics are flawed because stopping the criminal act is the point, not killing the criminal. Using a gun to hold a criminal until police arrive is just as valid. No one is recording instances where the person says, "Stop that, I have a gun." There are instances where a gun is the tool to provide a non-violent ending. Police deliver many people to jail without killing them using that method. This type of event happened to me and it isn't in any statistics database. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
algboy 0 #118 July 10, 2008 Quote It is not that hard to shoot someone when you are stood in front of them. If you think that pulling a gun on someone that already has a gun pointed at you is going to save you more than obeying thier commands, then when you are confronted, you will be a dead man! if they were going to shoot you anyway, then you are already dead. Most likely they want your money or valuables so they can buy thier next hit of crack! Hey, good luck with that belief system of yours . . . . Lemme guess--you've never shot a handgun in your life? You wanna know how to tell whether someone (who is pointing a gun at you) is going to kill you or just rob you? Wait until he pulls the trigger. [But I obeyed all his commands--waaaaahh!!] If I have a gun pointed at me and the $hiteater intends to shoot me--I have at least *some* chance of saving my life. Even if he doesn't intend to shoot me--too bad. I give myself the benefit of the doubt. With your theory: 100% failure rate--guaranteed. So, (in your world) every armed encounter is with a crack addict? PUT DOWN THE REMOTE, DUDE! Carrying a handgun in the land of OZ is not as do-able as here in the States, but if you are robbed by a gun-wielding assailant, what does that say about gun control laws? You are screwed. So . . . don't forget to "obey his commands" and good luck. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #119 July 10, 2008 Thank you, thank you for confirming that Washington DC is indeed an anomalous case and should not be used in comparisons to make a general point. Now weve put that to rest maybe we can have a useful discussion.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #120 July 10, 2008 No, it's not, at least, not in any formal sense - what you describe is exactly the type of questions asked by Kleck's survey. I should also note that those type of questions are NOT asked by the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is one of the sources where DOJ gets their numbers from (other surveys submitted by state/county/city police sources is the primary source, in my understanding).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #121 July 10, 2008 Quote Thank you, thank you for confirming that Washington DC is indeed an anomalous case and should not be used in comparisons to make a general point. Incorrect - YOU are saying that DC is an anomalous case, nobody else is. I'll quit using DC's numbers when the FBI quit putting them in the database - QED, the US government considers DC as equivalent to a state for crime reporting purposes, at the least. QuoteNow weve put that to rest maybe we can have a useful discussion. Maybe you can start the "useful discussion" by showing how Wyoming's high ownership of guns is driving their ASTRONOMICAL murder rate of 1.87/100k.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #122 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote So apparently you are over 4 times as likely to be shot dead accidentally as to shoot a felon. Usually you're not so sloppy with language. You're 4 times more like to be shot dead accidentally as to fatally shoot a felon. IF (big if) you paid attention to the thread, you would see that I was giving a direct answer to post #87 of this thread. You have chosen to speculate beyond the parameters set by piper17. Nope - I was addressing your inability or refusal to use proper English. Your statement was false, without the insertion of 'fatally.' Having a rough day, eh? Oh, a comedian. Can't dispute what I wrote so you quibble about grammar. Anyway, please checkyour post, the one in which YOU redundantly inserted "fatally" into my sentence (and split the infinitive). My sentence that does not include the redundant word. The same one in which you wrote: "You're 4 times more like to be shot ...". "More like"??? I think I'm not the one having the rough day, but thanks for your concern. Cast the beam out of thine own eye before worrying about the mote in mine.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #123 July 10, 2008 QuoteNo, it's not, at least, not in any formal sense - what you describe is exactly the type of questions asked by Kleck's survey. I should also note that those type of questions are NOT asked by the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is one of the sources where DOJ gets their numbers from (other surveys submitted by state/county/city police sources is the primary source, in my understanding). Of course, the FBI/DoJ can justify their data, while Kleck's is simply an (over)estimate, aka guess.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,677 #124 July 10, 2008 Quote Quote Thank you, thank you for confirming that Washington DC is indeed an anomalous case and should not be used in comparisons to make a general point. Incorrect - YOU are saying that DC is an anomalous case, nobody else is. I'll quit using DC's numbers when the FBI quit putting them in the database - QED, the US government considers DC as equivalent to a state for crime reporting purposes, at the least. Quote Now weve put that to rest maybe we can have a useful discussion. Maybe you can start the "useful discussion" by showing how Wyoming's high ownership of guns is driving their ASTRONOMICAL murder rate of 1.87/100k. You could always try reading the (peer reviewed) articles to find the answers to your questions, BEFORE hitting "post". It's all there. Oh, I forgot, you don't trust "*MEDICAL* journals" .... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #125 July 10, 2008 QuoteQuoteNo, it's not, at least, not in any formal sense - what you describe is exactly the type of questions asked by Kleck's survey. I should also note that those type of questions are NOT asked by the National Crime Victimization Survey, which is one of the sources where DOJ gets their numbers from (other surveys submitted by state/county/city police sources is the primary source, in my understanding). Of course, the FBI/DoJ can justify their data, while Kleck's is simply an (over)estimate, aka guess. I see - why don't you go ahead and provide the link to where the NCVS asks that exact question, then. I'll wait.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
