How's That Working For Ya Venezuelans?

[GMDino]

[Belsnickel]

(04-23-2017, 12:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "They" lol.  Simple math does all the proving that a rational person would need.  In the past twenty years the number of guns owned by citizens has soared while the violent crime rate continued to drop.  It's not that complicated.

You might want to be careful with that, saying 20 years can cause someone to make an argument regarding the effectiveness of the AWB.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2017, 05:12 PM)GMDino Wrote: Probably why sane, rational people know it won't ever happen so they don't fear monger about it.

Am I wrong in pointing out that the SCOTUS rules enacted legislation unconstitutional?  Am I wrong that federal courts have declared executive action by the POTUS unconstitutional?  I suppose worrying that our government may take unconstitutional action is fear mongering then hmm?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2017, 05:32 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You might want to be careful with that, saying 20 years can cause someone to make an argument regarding the effectiveness of the AWB.

A fair point.  The difference would be that the AWB targeted a problem that was never shown to exist.  "Assault weapons" were never shown, empirically, to contribute in any significant way to gun violence.  Conversely, the argument that more gun ownership equals more crime is made consistently, it is the root of the gun control agenda. 

[GMDino]

(04-23-2017, 05:39 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Am I wrong in pointing out that the SCOTUS rules enacted legislation unconstitutional?  Am I wrong that federal courts have declared executive action by the POTUS unconstitutional?  I suppose worrying that our government may take unconstitutional action is fear mongering then hmm?

No sir!  You are never wrong sir!

Just pointing out that the constitution has been upheld regarding gun ownership over and over and fear mongering about it sudden;y changing is just that...fear mongering.

Sir.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2017, 06:38 PM)GMDino Wrote: No sir!  You are never wrong sir!

Just pointing out that the constitution has been upheld regarding gun ownership over and over and fear mongering about it sudden;y changing is just that...fear mongering.

Sir.

It has also not been upheld in the same regard.   We'll see if the recent inane crap from CA is upheld or not.

[Dill]

(04-23-2017, 03:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, so please feel free to cite statistics that prove me wrong.

I do enjoy your attempt to conflate being pro gun rights to "white nationalism".  It is also certainly the case that most non-dictatorial, liberal democracies do restrict speech in a way that we would find intolerable in the United States.  Next failed point please.

Yes, it's called the national firearms act.  Of course, advocating current policy via historical precedent would also allow for denying of women's suffrage, equal rights for blacks or voting rights only for landowners.  Please feel free to throw more red herrings in the ring though, it only proves how weak your argument is.

I said your claim "It's that simple" is not that simple. That much I can demonstrate.

Let's start with your claim that the number of guns owned by citizens has "soared."  I don't dispute that. But to have some imagined effect on the crime rate, as in protecting households, wouldn't those guns have to be widely distributed?

Yet the number of households owning guns has dropped over the last 40 years. In 1973, 47% of US households had guns. in 1996, 40.1. In  2014, 31%. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf. http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers.

So some gun owners are buying more guns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/21/the-average-gun-owner-now-owns-8-guns-double-what-it-used-to-be/?utm_term=.4b11845f8ce0  The top 3% average over 25 firearms apiece. And much of this trend appears fueled by the fear that Obama was coming to take them away.  He's gone now. Perhaps sales will go down.

But fewer people are first-time buyers. Fewer households own guns.

Perhaps the guys with 10-25 guns or more are reducing crime for the rest of those households with no guns? Or perhaps there is no correlation between the rise in gun purchases and the drop in gun-related crime?

Nothing kills a claimed correlation=causation linkage like other correlations. Alcohol use is a factor in a high percentage of violent crime. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf 

It stands to reason that a drop in alcohol use would correlate to a drop in crime. And we do have such a correlation. https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/Controversies/1116895242.html  Per capita alcohol consumption in the US had dropped 23% since 1990.

Also, if your imputed correlation were causative, then we would expect to find fewer gun deaths in states with higher gun ownership. But we do not. http://www.vpc.org/press/states-with-weak-gun-laws-and-higher-gun-ownership-lead-nation-in-gun-deaths-new-data-for-2014-confirms/   
http://demographicdata.org/facts-and-figures/gun-death/  Even if one rules out suicides and accidents, the murder rate in places like Alaska, Mississippi, and Arkansas is still higher than states with low gun ownership rate. DC and New Jersey appear anomalies when compared with the remaining states.

If you correlation between gun ownership and a drop in crime rates were causative we would also expect to find it in other countries.  Do we?

[Dill]

(04-23-2017, 03:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I do enjoy your attempt to conflate being pro gun rights to "white nationalism".  It is also certainly the case that most non-dictatorial, liberal democracies do restrict speech in a way that we would find intolerable in the United States.  Next failed point please.

Yes, it's called the national firearms act.  Of course, advocating current policy via historical precedent would also allow for denying of women's suffrage, equal rights for blacks or voting rights only for landowners.  Please feel free to throw more red herrings in the ring though, it only proves how weak your argument is.

You didn't enjoy it that much; it was just an opportunity to ignore my point about the right-wing claim that dictatorships always seek to ban private firearms. Which non-dictatorial liberal democracies restrict speech in a way the US would find intolerable?  Whoa wait. was that a red herring? LOL almost got me there.

Advocating current policy via historical precedent is how the Volstead Act was repealed.

Historical precedent looked pretty important when you thought it supported your "correlation." No red herrings in your "history"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2017, 11:29 PM)Dill Wrote: I said your claim "It's that simple" is not that simple. That much I can demonstrate.

Let's start with your claim that the number of guns owned by citizens has "soared."  I don't dispute that. But to have some imagined effect on the crime rate, as in protecting households, wouldn't those guns have to be widely distributed?

Yet the number of households owning guns has dropped over the last 40 years. In 1973, 47% of US households had guns. in 1996, 40.1. In  2014, 31%. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf. http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers.

I don't buy the numbers in that study at all.  Gun owners aren't going to be up front with poll takers anymore, likely never again.

Quote:So some gun owners are buying more guns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/21/the-average-gun-owner-now-owns-8-guns-double-what-it-used-to-be/?utm_term=.4b11845f8ce0  The top 3% average over 25 firearms apiece. And much of this trend appears fueled by the fear that Obama was coming to take them away.  He's gone now. Perhaps sales will go down.

But fewer people are first-time buyers. Fewer households own guns.

Same point, I don't think people are even remotely honest with survey takers in this regard.  feel free to disagree, but also realize that Trump is president after every poll showed otherwise. (I'd point out that I predicted otherwise, for months)

Quote:Perhaps the guys with 10-25 guns or more are reducing crime for the rest of those households with no guns? Or perhaps there is no correlation between the rise in gun purchases and the drop in gun-related crime?

Or perhaps your data sucks ass?

Quote:Nothing kills a claimed correlation=causation linkage like other correlations. Alcohol use is a factor in a high percentage of violent crime. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf 

It stands to reason that a drop in alcohol use would correlate to a drop in crime. And we do have such a correlation. https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/Controversies/1116895242.html  Per capita alcohol consumption in the US had dropped 23% since 1990.

Haha, please.  You're talking to a man who deals with criminal behavior for a living.  Alcohol has a large effect on crimes like battery, and DV. Burglary, robbery, etc. not so much.

Quote:Also, if your imputed correlation were causative, then we would expect to find fewer gun deaths in states with higher gun ownership. But we do not. http://www.vpc.org/press/states-with-weak-gun-laws-and-higher-gun-ownership-lead-nation-in-gun-deaths-new-data-for-2014-confirms/   
http://demographicdata.org/facts-and-figures/gun-death/  Even if one rules out suicides and accidents, the murder rate in places like Alaska, Mississippi, and Arkansas is still higher than states with low gun ownership rate. DC and New Jersey appear anomalies when compared with the remaining states.

I see you're unfamiliar with statistics, despite your claims otherwise.  Allow me to explain.  My father's family is from a comparatively underpopulated section of Iowa.  When he was a kid a woman killed her six children by throwing them in a well.  According to your amazing statistics the per capita murder rate for that area was immense!  It was also a bullshit statistic.  Research outliers and their effect on statistics.  The basic point is that the higher the sample size the more reliable the data.  But you knew that, being a student of statistics and all.

Quote:If you correlation between gun ownership and a drop in crime rates were causative we would also expect to find it in other countries.  Do we?

I don't know, ask the citizens of Chicago. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-23-2017, 11:42 PM)Dill Wrote: You didn't enjoy it that much; it was just an opportunity to ignore my point about the right-wing claim that dictatorships always seek to ban private firearms.

Well, they do.  Kindly disprove the point if you can.

Quote:Which non-dictatorial liberal democracies restrict speech in a way the US would find intolerable?  Whoa wait. was that a red herring? LOL almost got me there.

Get a map of Europe and throw a dart.  You'll hit one.

Quote:Advocating current policy via historical precedent is how the Volstead Act was repealed.

Haha, prohibition, you are grasping at straws old man.

Quote:Historical precedent looked pretty important when you thought it supported your "correlation." No red herrings in your "history"?

Aww, don't twist the argument in your desperation.  The second amendment is in the bill of rights.  To overturn it you'd best have a better argument than feelings and other countries with no such inherent right.  You're in luck though, there is a process to amend the constitution, I'm assuming you're aware of it because you mentioned the Volstead act.  So, get a movement together to repeal the second amendment.  Until you do kindly shut your pie hole.  

[fredtoast]

(04-22-2017, 03:21 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Actually never said that, but thanks for putting that good 'ol Fred BS spin on it.

What I was saying was it probably sure would be nice to still own your gun while the President is trying to steal all power in the government, there are roving bands of criminals (who still have guns) stealing food that other people can't afford to lose, and the military is looking like they are going to turn into a dictators hit squad.

Sure would be nice to be able to defend yourself (or at least go shoot a wild animal to eat while starving) rather than just bend over and take it from everyone.

This makes no sense at all.  Most of the citizens still have their guns.  That means there should be no violenbce, correct?

isn't an armed society supposed to be the most peaceful society?

[GMDino]

A brief lesson in why discussions go nowhere.


A challenge is proposed:

(04-23-2017, 03:44 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, so please feel free to cite statistics that prove me wrong.

Followed by an explanation and links and citations.

(04-23-2017, 11:29 PM)Dill Wrote: I said your claim "It's that simple" is not that simple. That much I can demonstrate.

Let's start with your claim that the number of guns owned by citizens has "soared."  I don't dispute that. But to have some imagined effect on the crime rate, as in protecting households, wouldn't those guns have to be widely distributed?

Yet the number of households owning guns has dropped over the last 40 years. In 1973, 47% of US households had guns. in 1996, 40.1. In  2014, 31%. http://www.norc.org/PDFs/GSS%20Reports/GSS_Trends%20in%20Gun%20Ownership_US_1972-2014.pdf. http://www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers.

So some gun owners are buying more guns. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/10/21/the-average-gun-owner-now-owns-8-guns-double-what-it-used-to-be/?utm_term=.4b11845f8ce0  The top 3% average over 25 firearms apiece. And much of this trend appears fueled by the fear that Obama was coming to take them away.  He's gone now. Perhaps sales will go down.

But fewer people are first-time buyers. Fewer households own guns.

Perhaps the guys with 10-25 guns or more are reducing crime for the rest of those households with no guns? Or perhaps there is no correlation between the rise in gun purchases and the drop in gun-related crime?

Nothing kills a claimed correlation=causation linkage like other correlations. Alcohol use is a factor in a high percentage of violent crime. https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ac.pdf 

It stands to reason that a drop in alcohol use would correlate to a drop in crime. And we do have such a correlation. https://www.alcoholproblemsandsolutions.org/Controversies/1116895242.html  Per capita alcohol consumption in the US had dropped 23% since 1990.

Also, if your imputed correlation were causative, then we would expect to find fewer gun deaths in states with higher gun ownership. But we do not. http://www.vpc.org/press/states-with-weak-gun-laws-and-higher-gun-ownership-lead-nation-in-gun-deaths-new-data-for-2014-confirms/   
http://demographicdata.org/facts-and-figures/gun-death/  Even if one rules out suicides and accidents, the murder rate in places like Alaska, Mississippi, and Arkansas is still higher than states with low gun ownership rate. DC and New Jersey appear anomalies when compared with the remaining states.

If you correlation between gun ownership and a drop in crime rates were causative we would also expect to find it in other countries.  Do we?

Followed by denial.

(04-23-2017, 11:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't buy the numbers in that study at all.  Gun owners aren't going to be up front with poll takers anymore, likely never again.




Same point, I don't think people are even remotely honest with survey takers in this regard.  feel free to disagree, but also realize that Trump is president after every poll showed otherwise. (I'd point out that I predicted otherwise, for months)




Or perhaps your data sucks ass?



Haha, please.  You're talking to a man who deals with criminal behavior for a living.  Alcohol has a large effect on crimes like battery, and DV.  Burglary, robbery, etc. not so much.





I see you're unfamiliar with statistics, despite your claims otherwise.  Allow me to explain.  My father's family is from a comparatively underpopulated section of Iowa.  When he was a kid a woman killed her six children by throwing them in a well.  According to your amazing statistics the per capita murder rate for that area was immense!  It was also a bullshit statistic.  Research outliers and their effect on statistics.  The basic point is that the higher the sample size the more reliable the data.  But you knew that, being a student of statistics and all.




I don't know, ask the citizens of Chicago. 

One person uses multiple sources. One person cites his own amazing ability based on his job and a personal experience.

Amazing.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2017, 09:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: A brief lesson in why discussions go nowhere.  


A challenge is proposed:


Followed by an explanation and links and citations.


Followed by denial.


One person uses multiple sources.  One person cites his own amazing ability based on his job and a personal experience.

Amazing.

Flawed research is worse than no research.  I am far from the only person who has claimed that the methodology of those studies renders them useless.  Let's stick to provable facts shall we?  Gun ownership is up and crime is down.  Both are trends extending back years.  Not disputable.  

[BmorePat87]

Venezuela is an awful country. But they have Danny Glover and Joseph Kennedy.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2017, 09:57 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:


Venezuela is an awful country. But they have Danny Glover and Joseph Kennedy.

Don't forget Sean Penn and Oliver Stone!

[GMDino]

(04-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Flawed research is worse than no research.  I am far from the only person who has claimed that the methodology of those studies renders them useless.  Let's stick to provable facts shall we?  Gun ownership is up and crime is down.  Both are trends extending back years.  Not disputable.  

[Dill]

(04-24-2017, 09:44 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Flawed research is worse than no research.  I am far from the only person who has claimed that the methodology of those studies renders them useless.  Let's stick to provable facts shall we?  Gun ownership is up and crime is down.  Both are trends extending back years.  Not disputable.  

Just to focus you a little bit here.  No one was disputing gun ownership was up and that crime is down. What is disputed is any causal relation between gun owner ship and lower crime.

You want to "stick to provable facts" and claim gun ownership is up.
But then you yourself undermine ownership stats by claiming gun owners do not report honestly.

By he way, flawed research is at least research. It is something, and may be corrected.  You talk about "outliers" while offering story about a single incident in Iowa. Then you state  "The basic point is that the higher the sample size the more reliable the data."  So what is unreliable about "sample size" based upon crime data of entire states and nations?  It appears you plucked a rule out of the air and claimed it applied to my sources, without explaining how.

Then after raising the issue of sample size, you inform me I am talking to a man who "deals with criminal behavior for a living" by way of dismissing the correlation I made between a drop in alcohol use and a drop in crime. I guess sample size and "outliers" are no longer a problem when talking about your experience?

Were I writing an article for a law review or a political science text on guns and crime, I could not refute a statistical correlation between alcohol use and violent crime by citing your claim that "it,s not so much"--even if I add a footnote explaining that "SSF is a cop who deals with criminals every day and this is his impression." Yet you appear to believe yourself a perfectly reliable source whose impressions trump statistical data complied in multiple sites by professional researchers.

Further, if after offering your impressions, you blow off reasonable, supported arguments with answers like "your data sucks," "throw a dart," and "shut your pie hole," while calling your opponent "desperate" you are really undermining any claim to know what you are talking about. Your argument reduces to "I just know" plus ad hominem.

[Dill]

(04-24-2017, 09:28 AM)GMDino Wrote: A brief lesson in why discussions go nowhere.  

One person uses multiple sources.  One person cites his own amazing ability based on his job and a personal experience.

Amazing.

Haha, I didn't only use multiple sources. I vetted those sources and placed them two create two tactical contrasts with the NRA narrative.

The response reminds me a bit of what happens when one disputes Trump claims of 3-5 million illegal voters, backs it up with reference to state and national records, not to mention the testimony of 33 Republican governors, and Trumpsters just claim state and national records are all BS. The Trump win is trotted out as "proof" stats are unreliable, license for personal experience and imagery to trump stats.

The framework for rational debate has broken down over the last 20 years--correlating to the rise of Fox and right-wing populism, lol.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(04-23-2017, 05:18 PM)GMDino Wrote:

"Oh hey, you guys had to win court decisions after court decision and constantly resisted Obama's endless attempts to make more and more strict gun laws. Why did you pretend Obama wanted to take your guns when you still have them?" 

It's almost like without fighting against it, we wouldn't. Then I am sure there'd be some meme "You're telling me nobody resisted it when Obama introduced a law to restrict gun ownership, and now people are upset their guns were taken away? WTH?"

(04-24-2017, 09:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: This makes no sense at all.  Most of the citizens still have their guns.  That means there should be no violenbce, correct?

isn't an armed society supposed to be the most peaceful society?

I will gladly answer your questions when you point out where I said "if citizens have their guns, there will be no violence". I simply said it sure would be nice to be able to defend yourself against the violence and/or feed yourself with hunting while you're slowly starving to death.

Relying on the police to protect you only works when they aren't working off a bribe basis.
Going to the grocery store to feed yourself only works when your money isn't worthless and there's actually groceries on the shelves.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-24-2017, 02:20 PM)Dill Wrote: Just to focus you a little bit here.  No one was disputing gun ownership was up and that crime is down. What is disputed is any causal relation between gun owner ship and lower crime.

Ahh, I'm starting to understand your confusion.  Your claiming I made an argument that I never made. I do not think the drop in violent crime is due to increased gun ownership, nor have I ever inferred that.  What I did say, which is true, is that gun ownership has gone up while violent crime has gone down.  This would, IMO strongly, suggest that there is no direct correlation to gun ownership by private, law abiding, citizens and violent crime. 

Quote:You want to "stick to provable facts" and claim gun ownership is up.
But then you yourself undermine ownership stats by claiming gun owners do not report honestly.

How do I undermine myself by making that claim?  It's blatantly true.  Gun owners are not truthful about the number and type of guns they own to people they do not trust.  This would obviously include a guy on the phone taking a "survey".  There are many reasons for this, chief among them being they don't want their home to be a target for burglary.

Quote:By he way, flawed research is at least research. It is something, and may be corrected.  You talk about "outliers" while offering story about a single incident in Iowa. Then you state  "The basic point is that the higher the sample size the more reliable the data."  So what is unreliable about "sample size" based upon crime data of entire states and nations?  It appears you plucked a rule out of the air and claimed it applied to my sources, without explaining how.

I did explain why.  The study used self reported gun ownership as their data.  This is poor methodology for reasons I've already explained.

Quote:Then after raising the issue of sample size, you inform me I am talking to a man who "deals with criminal behavior for a living" by way of dismissing the correlation I made between a drop in alcohol use and a drop in crime.  I guess sample size and "outliers" are no longer a problem when talking about your experience?  

Yes, my professional life undeniably makes me much more qualified on this subject than you.  Are you disputing this?

Quote:Were I writing an article for a law review or a political science text on guns and crime, I could not refute a statistical correlation between alcohol use and violent crime by citing your claim that "it,s not so much"--even if I add a footnote explaining that "SSF is a cop who deals with criminals every day and this is his impression."  Yet you appear to believe yourself a perfectly reliable source whose impressions trump statistical data complied in multiple sites by professional researchers.

Dear god this is a word salad.  Did this make more sense in your head?

Quote:Further, if after offering your impressions, you blow off reasonable, supported arguments with answers like "your data sucks,"  "throw a dart," and "shut your pie hole," while calling your opponent "desperate" you are really undermining any claim to know what you are talking about.  Your argument reduces to "I just know" plus ad hominem.

Do you dispute that European countries do not allow for the level of free speech that we enjoy in this country?  Seeing as you did not even attempt to address my assertion I suspect you know I'm right.  I get tired of holding your hand so sometimes I get a little annoyed, much apologies.