How's That Working For Ya Venezuelans?

[SunsetBengal]

(04-25-2017, 12:50 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No.  You are 100%$ wrong.  Anyone can buy a gun from a private party in South Carolina with no background check at all, even a mentally ill convicted violent felon.

Wow, you are completely correct.  I actually live in NC, and for a private sale or "transfer" to legally occur, buyer must present a pistol purchase permit, or a concealed carry permit.  I honestly had no idea that SC was that much different from NC, in terms of gun regulations.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-25-2017, 06:23 PM)Dill Wrote: Let's go back to your Iowa story for a moment.

You have indeed "disputed" the gun ownership stats I offered claiming that gun owners are not honest with surveyors.  Apparently you are so confident about this you have not demonstrated that you have looked into how the statistics in my sources were compiled.  A little patience would have enabled you to see that different researchers working on different projects for different institutions have compiled and shared and cross-referenced gun ownership stats for decades, controlling for "no response" answers and using means other than surveys to arrive at the current trend of proportionally fewer households owning guns and more gun owners owning more guns.  There is no special reason to distrust the stats showing a downward trend in the percentage of households owning guns.

I didn't dispute the trend, I disputed the absurd claim that the vast majority of firearms are owned by a minute percentage of gun owners.

Quote:You trust gun ownership statistics when you think they support what you want to believe--more people own guns. Then they are "provable facts." And you stop there.  But when they don't support what you want to believe they "suck."  Or do you have an alternative set of gun ownership stats based upon truthful gun owners? 

Indisputable fact, the number of guns in private hands has increased drastically while violent crime continued to decline.  Nothing about this statement is disputable.

Quote:Your Iowa story is the basis of a claim that the gun ownership stats are based upon a small sample size. 

Nope, not what I said.  It pains me to have to constantly explain the obvious to the less intuitive.  The point of the story is that exceptional single incidents will more dramatically affect lower populations when the subject is a per capita rate.

Quote:Nothing in any of my sources supports this claim.  you tell a story about outlier distortion. Claim it affects the stats offered. But do not show this at all. You do not identify any sample size. You do not at all discuss how the sources compiled their data.  I have pointed out that a sample size of STATE and NATIONAL statistics is involved in producing gun ownership stats. I add now (since I have to) that these do not only rely on "surveys." They also correlate, for example, the rate of gun deaths with the rate of ownership. These factor in, among other things, ALL GUN DEATHS in states and the nation, not to mention data like gun registration and gun purchases in some states.  Those who die by guns do not get to lie to statisticians.  

I didn't dispute national statistics.  I merely pointed out that a single gun related incident in Wyoming, for example, affects the per capita statistics far more than the same type of incident in California.  Again, this isn't disputable.

Quote:There is a larger, national dimension to your beef with the facts in this case. Scientifically compiled statistical knowledge is disputed by our president and his supporters on an almost weekly basis (his win often cited as a supposed failure of statistical science). And it is disputed on the basis of their instinct or gut feeling or what they just "know."  In line with this trend, you, when confronted with an array of statistical data you claim "sucks," substitute methodological critique and any data of your own with your private experience. 

Good lord, do you and your buddies have dreams about Trump?  I had issue with the methodology of the survey cited.  I explained my reasons.  You disagree.  Good for you.

Quote:National trends in crime and gun ownership are suddenly to be decided by whether your opponent knows police work better than you.  

Again, not what I said.  It really is painful dealing with someone of your capacity.

Quote:You are hardly the first person in this forum confront uncomfortable statistics with no more than your own hunch and deal of bravado.  The Trump role model is aptly followed by others.

Again with Trump.  Dear god you're boring.

Quote:But you could probably save us all some time and ink if, instead of challenging people to post stats you'll blow off without examining, you just made clear that personal experience will your ultimate criterion whatever anyone else puts up.  

Once again, not what I said.  

[fredtoast]

(04-25-2017, 10:34 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Nope, not what I said.  It pains me to have to constantly explain the obvious to the less intuitive.  The point of the story is that exceptional single incidents will more dramatically affect lower populations when the subject is a per capita rate.



I didn't dispute national statistics.  I merely pointed out that a single gun related incident in Wyoming, for example, affects the per capita statistics far more than the same type of incident in California.  Again, this isn't disputable.

Something you need to know about small sampls size.  If it was was distorting the data then there would see wild swings from year to year, but we don't see that.  So your argument fails.

Need to come up with something better than that to throw away all those statistics you don't like.  Maybe try somthing like "I just know more than everyone else because I am a police officer."

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-26-2017, 09:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Something you need to know about small sampls size.  If it was was distorting the data then there would see wild swings from year to year, but we don't see that.  So your argument fails.

Ugh, the endless repetition.  Even getting consistent results does not make up for the shortcomings of a small sample size.  Any statistician will tell you, the more data the more accurate your conclusions made from that data.

Quote:Need to come up with something better than that to throw away all those statistics you don't like.  Maybe try somthing like "I just know more than everyone else because I am a police officer."

Haha, never said that, but you know that.  I pointed out a truth in regards to a facetious point and that was the extent of that.  Lastly, I didn't throw away "all those statistics" I pointed out the flaws in both their accumulation and their conclusions.  If you disagree, that's cool.  You and your sock puppets would probably do better if you actually responded to points people make rather than trying to score snarky internet points.  To each their own I suppose.

[GMDino]

From 2014



Obama better get to work!

[fredtoast]

(04-26-2017, 10:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ugh, the endless repetition.  Even getting consistent results does not make up for the shortcomings of a small sample size.  Any statistician will tell you, the more data the more accurate your conclusions made from that data.

Any statitician will also tell you that looking at "variables" can give you "more exact" information.

Looking at the rate of heart disease in smokers is looking at a smaller sample size than the entire population, but that does not mean the stats about smokers are meaningless and skewed by smaller sample size.

So when disussing the effects of gun laws and gun ownership it is helpful to compare different states with different gun laws and owneership rates.  the fact that these states have smaller sample sizes is meaningless because you have to look at the variables to make any educated conclusions.

there can be a lot of arguments about other variables that might effect the crime rate in different states but it is ridiculous to claim that statistical analysis does not include breaking down statistics into smaller parts based on variables.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 09:05 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Any statitician will also tell you that looking at "variables" can give you "more exact" information.

Looking at the rate of heart disease in smokers is looking at a smaller sample size than the entire population, but that does not mean the stats about smokers are meaningless and skewed by smaller sample size.

Once again, I'll ignore your cherry picking.  This is an inane analogy as you try and compare the impact of a certain behavior on one segment of the entire population versus radically different sample sizes studying the exact same thing.  Comparison fail.

Quote:So when disussing the effects of gun laws and gun ownership it is helpful to compare different states with different gun laws and owneership rates.  the fact that these states have smaller sample sizes is meaningless because you have to look at the variables to make any educated conclusions.

Sure, just as long as you realize, as any statistician would, that the smaller sample sizes of less populace states are going to give you more skewed data than the more populous states.

Quote:there can be a lot of arguments about other variables that might effect the crime rate in different states but it is ridiculous to claim that statistical analysis does not include breaking down statistics into smaller parts based on variables.

As I already said.  However, then using this data to make absolute direct comparisons is flawed in its very concept.  I'll give you an actually relevant analogy.  Take the top twenty cities by murder rate in the United States.  

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-united-states.html

You'll find the overwhelming majority of them are Democratic run cities.  Ergo, we must conclude that Democratic governance leads to higher murder rates.  There couldn't possibly be other factors at work could there?

[GMDino]

(04-27-2017, 10:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Once again, I'll ignore your cherry picking.  This is an inane analogy as you try and compare the impact of a certain behavior on one segment of the entire population versus radically different sample sizes studying the exact same thing.  Comparison fail.




Sure, just as long as you realize, as any statistician would, that the smaller sample sizes of less populace states are going to give you more skewed data than the more populous states.


As I already said.  However, then using this data to make absolute direct comparisons is flawed in its very concept.  I'll give you an actually relevant analogy.  Take the top twenty cities by murder rate in the United States.  

http://www.worldatlas.com/articles/most-dangerous-cities-in-the-united-states.html

You'll find the overwhelming majority of them are Democratic run cities.  Ergo, we must conclude that Democratic governance leads to higher murder rates.  There couldn't possibly be other factors at work could there?

(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?


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.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(04-27-2017, 10:48 AM)GMDino Wrote:

It appears you still have work to do on the whole reading the English language thing. Sad.

[fredtoast]

(04-27-2017, 10:34 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Once again, I'll ignore your cherry picking.  This is an inane analogy as you try and compare the impact of a certain behavior on one segment of the entire population versus radically different sample sizes studying the exact same thing.  
Comparison fail.

They are4 not studying the exact same thing.  They are doing comparative analysis between different states with different variables.

Please tell me how anyone is ever supposed to do comparative analysis between different groups with different variables without having smaller sample sizes?  How is that even possible?  Don't you have to split up the entire population into smaller groups if you want to any sort of comparative analysis?

[Belsnickel]

(04-25-2017, 08:03 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Wow, you are completely correct.  I actually live in NC, and for a private sale or "transfer" to legally occur, buyer must present a pistol purchase permit, or a concealed carry permit.  I honestly had no idea that SC was that much different from NC, in terms of gun regulations.

Yeah, I missed this. NC is actually sandwiched between two states like this, because VA is just like this as well. No registration, only background checks for registered dealers, no permits required, buy as many as you want, etc. It's why we are where so many firearms come from that make their way to NY.