Just the facts for our gun control members

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by theorangebluewinagain, Aug 10, 2013.

  1. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    You really ought to hitch your wagon to someone a bit more informed. Or at least to more informed evidence.
  2. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    You lob ad hominems but then avoid even answering about it, instead posting more superficial numbers that do not answer the question. I don't need to hitch anything to mdgator as I have been involved in these issues for years. But even if I weren't, md's analysis is exactly what I was writing about. Instead from you we get more charts that repeat earlier claims.

    Have you ever considered that since all violent and property crimes are down since the peak in the late 80s early 90s, nationally, not just gun related crime, that it might have something to do with something unrelated to an increase in gun sales? Have you ruled out other variables? Or how about that most gun related crime occurs with illegally obtained guns, so how is it that legally obtained guns are influencing illegal gun crime?

    Again, you should know better than to assume some inverse correlation simply because one trend is going down and another going up. They could be related or not, or both trends could be a result of a third variable, who knows? But I'd like to see the actual evidence that supports this direct relationship. No amount of fancy-pants looking graphs can obscure not actually measuring whether there is a relationship or not; a point of which I gave mdgator credit for at least doing some analysis.
  3. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,117
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    I am not sure how I cherry picked stats. I used the numbers you provided from Gallup on household gun ownership rates as the independent variable. I then used the overall US violent crime and murder rates data as the dependent variable. I then ran correlation between these three variables. Your argument was:

    How is running a correlation and a set of regressions not the correct hypothesis test? It is certainly more robust than your stats, which show crime is falling (which it is) but do not demonstrate any form of correlation to gun ownership except in one cherry picked pair of years. That is cherry picking data. I ran the math on all available years. If you have a better time series of gun ownership rates than the Gallup poll, I would be happy to reconstruct the math and run it for you, although I am sure you probably could manage it if you really wanted to do so as it is basic level stats.

    I have told you this before, but I will repeat it again, the ability to insult other posters is not in and of itself a strong argument. You are clearly very good at the former, but are demonstrating weakness in this case of the latter. Face it, no amount of insulting others will make you less wrong in your initial point. Gun ownership is not inversely correlated to gun violence in the total time series. Certainly you could (and did) cherry pick two years to try to show that, but it is simply not true over either a 20 year time series or a 40 year time series.

    That is probably why you try to move the goal posts to talking about gun law liberalization, rather than actual household gun ownership rates, as you were initially doing. But your attempt to do so was flatly transparent.
  4. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,822
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    Nice try, but we all know math has a liberal bias.
    • Like Like x 1
  5. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    The assertion.

    1.) Gun laws were liberalized in most states the late 80 and early 90s. Liberals warned that doing so would lead to increased gun violence. It has not. Just the opposite. Therefore there is a negative correlation between liberalizing gun laws and gun violence. And yes, I realize that I presented the graphs on household gun ownership. I only did that to refute the assertion that household gun ownership was decreasing. As I demonstrated, it is not. And when I used the term gun ownership, I was referring to guns per person. Not guns per household.

    What you "proved."

    1.) Gun violence and gun ownerships per households are not correlated. Therefore you are wrong.

    No, I am not wrong. Gun violence has NOT increased. Just the opposite. That there is no statistical correlation between households owning a gun and gun violence is not germane to my assertion. (I assume there is none, as I have no interest in checking your math and analytical process.)
  6. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Oh stop it. You whine about "ad hominems" and yet lob the same. Clean your own house.

    I refuted md's analysis quite well. If you could follow it.

    I have considered that. Which if you read my posts, would would see THAT DO DO NOT CLAIM CAUSALITY

    One does not have to assume inverse correlation at all. It is a function of math.

    To wit: Gun laws have become more liberal. Gun ownership per capita has increased. Gun violence, and violence of all kinds have gone down. Ergo, there is an inverse correlation.
  7. fastsix
    Offline

    fastsix Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2007
    Messages:
    6,822
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Seattle
    Ratings Received:
    +1,330
    By your logic...

    To wit: Weight gain has gone up since the 80s. In the same time frame, gun violence, and violence of all kinds have gone down. Ergo, there is an inverse correlation. The fatter we get, the less gun violence there will be.

    The solution to violent crime is obesity.
  8. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Keep avoiding...

    But if it's a function of math, as you say, than why not actually do some rather than searching for random links that don't prove your case?

    Two random trends do not a correlation necessarily make. You realize, or maybe not, that for two things to "correlate" they actually have to "relate," and that has to be measured in some way.
  9. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,117
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    Once again, you are attempting to move the goal posts. Here, in direct quote form is the statement to which I was responding. As you see, you do not mention gun law liberalization at any point in the post. I recognize that you did earlier in the thread, but there is a reason I quoted this particular post, as the claims within are the focus of my analysis:

    Two mentions of a negative correlation between gun ownership and violent crime (both bolded). Not a single mention of gun law liberalization. After your point was proven wrong, rather than simply acknowledge it, you attempted to change the focus of the argument to gun law liberalization. But that was not what was in the post that I quoted. The only falsifiable claim made in that post (twice) was that there was an inverse correlation between gun ownership rates and gun violence. If you are going to claim that this post was about gun law liberalization, feel free to bold the usage of those words or even that concept within the post (#36).

    So I decided to test that falsifiable claim.

    If you are now claiming that you meant that there was an obvious negative correlation between guns per person and violent crime (a dubious claim being as you linked household gun ownership and not guns per person in an earlier post and then declared there being an obvious negative correlation), please show me a good dataset of guns per person in the US over time, and I would be happy to test this claim. However, this data is very hard to find as gun ownership rates are typically measured on a household basis.

    Violence has not increased. However, there are some statistical correlations between households owning a gun and overall violence. There is a positive correlation between murder rates and gun ownership using the 40 year data and a positive correlation between overall violent crime rates and murder rates with household gun ownership rates using the 20 year data. So you can't claim that there isn't a correlation. There is. It is a positive correlation, not a negative one as you claimed in post #36.
  10. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Well done.

    Maybe it was the Brady Handgun Violence Act that decreased violent crime? :ninja:

    --attached is a quick graphical depiction of the trend lines using the gallup data of gun ownership (in red) overlayed on homicide rates (blue). Nothing definitive of course for a few reasons, but I was curious to see what it looked like.
  11. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    Oh just stop it. This is an intellectually dishonest argument. I never said there was causality.
  12. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    I am not avoiding anything. You keep claiming that I claim causation. I never said that. Not once.

    I understand very well that correlation is not necessarily causal.

    Let's get back to the issue YOU avoid. Liberals INSISTED that loosening gun laws would lead to more gun violence.

    It has not. Discuss.
  13. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    meH

    I wrote that poorly. I was referring to guns per capita. An intellectualy honest persson would go to the preevious post where I wrote;

    That was my original post on the matter. I was referring to gun laws and guns per person. My later post was poorly written in that regard. So sue me.



    As I demonstrated, you are wrong. In my original post, I wrote extensively about it. Just because you choose to ignore it is not my problem.

    Admit you are wrong, if you like. But it does not matter.

    The facts are that for the last 25 years or so, gun laws have been liberalized, guns per person has increased and the households with gun has remained relatively constant. Yet gun violence is down.

    Discuss
  14. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    No, I don't keep claiming that you are saying causation.That, MJ, is a strawman argument.

    My last post to you (#48) was strictly about correlation, something, I should remind you, you have not yet demonstrated. Just saying it is is not evidence thereof, no matter how much you believe it.

    Heck, you haven't even identified which gun laws you are talking about, just some nebulous claim of gun laws. Well, which ones? The Brady Act was a major piece of gun legislation passed in the early 90s...but certainly didn't contribute to this alleged "liberalizing" of gun laws. Maybe that is where the correlation is (and before you go distorting things yet again, I am not saying that there is in fact correlation). Point is, we can't know unless it is actually measured.

    Why should I have to answer about the liberal perspective on guns when I don't share that general viewpoint? That has never been my argument and wasn't the point of my first post. Since your first response to me on this thread you've been trying to put me into that box. Like I said, this is you deflecting. I am guessing it's because you can't come up with the actual evidence, so you bloviate. To that, I would say, oh just stop it.
  15. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    7,117
    Likes Received:
    293
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +981
    And again, I was dealing with the falsifiable claim in your post, and when that was proven false, you suddenly just want to pretend like you didn't make that claim.

    If you are commenting on an obvious inverse correlation between guns per person and violent crime rates, let's see a time series dataset of guns per person. Obviously, a correlation can't be obvious if you can't find the data to evaluate such a correlation. I would be happy to run the analysis if you can find such a dataset, but I have been unable to find a group that actually collects this data over time. However, I am sure if the correlation is obvious, that you have found a good dataset for this variable, so don't keep it a secret. Let's see it so that it can be evaluated.
  16. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    sighhh.......

    Please let me write this again
    1.) Gun Laws have become more liberalized
    2.) Guns per person has increased
    3.) Households reporting at least one gun has been stable, and have recently increased a bit
    4.) Violent crime per person has declined

    I am not sure how I can make this any clearer?

    Sighhhh....

    CCP laws, as I mentioned, have become more common. I mentioned that. The number of states issuing CCP has increased dramatically over the last 25 years or so. This site has a nice little map that shows the progression.

    [​IMG]

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc2.gif

    Actually, anyone with 3rd grade internet skills can come up with this evidence.
  17. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    Wow, you actually made a step in the right direction. Didn't think you had it in you given all your jabbering and straw man arguments.

    But you still haven't shown correlation and since you are the one making the claim, even a third grader could recognize that you are the one that should be backing it up. Don't expect me to do your work for you.
  18. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    sighhh...

    Historical Population Data – United States

    Year: Total Midyear Population
    2011: 311,591,917
    2010: 309,330,219
    2009: 306,771,529
    2008: 304,093,966
    2007: 301,231,207
    2006: 298,379,912
    2005: 295,753,000
    2004: 292,805,298
    2003: 290,107,933
    2002: 287,625,193
    2001: 284,968,955
    2000: 282,162,411
    1999: 279,040,168
    1998: 275,854,104
    1997: 272,646,925
    1996: 269,394,284


    At the end of 1994, there were approximately 192 million guns in the USA . Using the 1996 census, that is .71 guns per person. (the first site I went to only went back to the 1996 census. Assuming a population increase from 1994 to 1996, this makes my guns per capita more conservative. Feel free to find the 1994 census.

    In 2007, one study concluded there were 310 million guns in the USA. Given the population, that means the ratio jumps to just over 1 gun per person.


    That looks like an increase to me. How about to you? Yet, as I showed, violent crime per 1000 people has been declining.
  19. MichaelJoeWilliamson
    Offline

    MichaelJoeWilliamson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2009
    Messages:
    6,820
    Likes Received:
    415
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +497
    My goodness.

    Please let me write this again
    1.) Gun Laws have become more liberalized
    2.) Guns per person has increased
    3.) Households reporting at least one gun has been stable, and have recently increased a bit
    4.) Violent crime per person has declined

    I have provided evidence for every single assertion. How can I make it anymore clear?
  20. asuragator
    Offline

    asuragator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2009
    Messages:
    20,534
    Likes Received:
    4,091
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +6,085
    That is not correlation even if you list it one hundred times. That is just your assumptions. There is a big difference.

Share This Page