Gun Homicides in the USA raw data discussion

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by RainbowSingularity, Apr 25, 2018.

  1. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    what, exactly, does anyone mean by "bigger" and "smaller"?
    the weapon length?
    calibre?
    barrel length?
    overall cubic inches displaced?

    the original quote was to this
    so is this a discussion about weapons of mass destruction?

    ...


    just curious as to where that is heading...
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    considering the scientific method, a study is really a point of interest. It is data to consider, but it's not a scientific fact until validation occurs. So if it's published and there is a refute from another source that is biased in the other direction, you have to consider the possibility that bias is the cause of the study conclusions.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,514
    My original response about

    with the emphasis on "the number killed per event does seem to have risen recently - nobody knows why, for sure"

    My post

    And later when size was questioned

    Really? "the number killed per event does seem to have risen recently - nobody knows why, for sure"

    Nobody can work out that a machine gun can kill faster than a six shooter and a bomb in a large crowd is going to kill more people a lot quicker

    nobody knows why, for sure

    Really

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    my thoughts

    machine guns are tightly regulated and not for sale to the general public, and the rate of fire of a semi-automatic is dependent entirely on the individual. so the reason that "the number killed per event does seem to have risen recently" could be multiple things starting with the intentional targeting of gun free zones and ending with the lack of enforcement of multiple laws and the willingness of people to take lives no matter what the situation or consequences.

    It sure as hell doesn't help when the media make legends out of the idiot shooters and not of the hero's who stop them (or save the lives of children during the shooting).

    As I noted earlier, the school shooting at Columbine happened during an "assault weapons" ban in a gun free zone (18 U.S.C. ยง 921(a)(25) )
     
  8. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,384
    If bias is present, it will be visible in the methods, the argument, and the conclusions (or any concealment of same). That's one of the strengths of scientific research - it's visible. Sometimes it is overlooked (especially bias of omission) until replication attempts fail, etc, but it's always there.
    That's irrelevant. The value of any unenforced law is small or negative - that's no argument against good laws.
    As I pointed out, that possible explanation would require such more lethal weapons to have been in more common use recently - and evidence of that is lacking.
    Yep. Fact. For example, although intuitively attractive your hypothesis of bombs and machine guns recently replacing six-shooters is not supported by evidence.
     
  9. Michael 345 Bali tonight Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,514
    So the semi automatic with bump stock was available when the mass shootings started way back when and were in people's possession in the same numbers?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,384
    There is no solid evidence that thing - or that kind of thing - accounts for the recent rise in average number killed per mass shooting. (Last ten years).
     
  11. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    so?
    that doesn't change the fact that a singular study is just a point of interest until validation occurs.
    that is the point of validation/replication

    the point about bias still stands as well. One biased study is no different than an opinion and as such can be effectively refuted by simply having a differing opinion.
    The bias, as you note, will always be able to be discerned, but not by biased readers; only by impartial science.


    the value cannot be small or negative if it's shown to be an effective law when enforced. We have miltiple examples of failures due to existing law that demonstrate that [x] can be avoided by enforcing the laws, so enforcement is a major point of any law, including your "new" laws that you want
     
    Vociferous likes this.
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,384
    Not if it has data support. The differing opinions have to answer to the data, to "refute" anything.
     
  13. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,436
    "big gun"

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    and
    It ain't the biggest
     
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  14. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,436
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  15. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,436
    Chinese .60 caliber

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: May 6, 2018
    Truck Captain Stumpy likes this.
  16. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    as posted already: and I'll just quote it since it's relevant to this thread as well as the other

    This is relevant because interpretation of the data is what you're arguing in your above comment
     
  17. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,386
    watch the cups very carefully.
    im going to move them around and you have to guess which one is hiding the magic bean.

    ... very scientific.
    i notice you have not posted any links.
    soo ...
    nothing changed
     
  18. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    then you are not reading the posts: http://www.sciforums.com/threads/gun-homicides-in-the-usa-raw-data-discussion.160783/#post-3517266
    that post has 4 links in it for you to get the data you want
    so either you're lying or confused about what is actually being said... especially considering my quote. there are no authorized public links for ViCAP to get the data you want and you're not a cop otherwise you would already be aware of how to access the database

    however - you can peruse their FBI postings page here: https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/vicap
     
  19. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,384
    You underestimate the potential for foolishness in poorly supported opinion. A biased study is often far superior to what passes for somebody's opinion.
    A study can be corrected for its bias, and inform the careful surveyor. The same is not true of most opinions.
    Some are more interesting than others. Some are immediately recognizable as invalid - their conclusions do not follow from their evidence.
    And we have no singular studies here, anyway.
    But none of your contribution there is accurate or sensible or relevant. As noted, I am not doing those things you claim - I am not assuming competence, not trusting sources, not interpreting data, and so forth. I am reasoning from evidence about the various studies - evaluating not their data, but their arguments. I am referring to other such evaluations, as well - especially those exhibiting sophisticated statistical machinery I lack, or with access to new and informative points of view.
    For example, I have been posting for a long time about the obvious invalidity and consequent creation of muddle inherent in aggregating gun violence statistics by State rather than region and demographic, but Donald Richards took the next step and developed a better analytical tool for handling such improperly aggregated data - avoiding some of the more obvious absurdities of the linear regression approach, and making a case for better aggregation protocols.
    Which one recognizes by its transparent reliance on valid reasoning, from the data collection on up to the extrapolations from the findings.
    Not by namecalling and assigning assumptions of bias to whatever and whomever is around.
     
  20. Truck Captain Stumpy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    890
    no, I do not underestimate the potential. And the argument isn't that a biased study is often superior to "what passes for somebody's opinion" - the argument is that a biased study is equivalent to an opinion.

    A biased study, or one that is known to be biased, or one that is shown to be biased, is nothing more than confirmation bias, and as such holds no weight except to those who are seeking to validate their beliefs. as such, this specifically translates to cherry-picking data to support your beliefs, therefore it is a self-report of feelings or personal judgment using selective data to reinforce a belief. That is opinion


    only when not biased
    false claim - repeating it doesn't make it truer

    except when you assume the competence of [x] source superior over [y] source and (literally) not trusting sources as much as [x] source because of (literally) your interpretation of the data, and the assumption that the source is unbiased when demonstrated otherwise

    that was repeatedly pointed out to you as well - by myself and Vociferous

    we likely have similar goals of protection of the masses and children, however, I am not willing to discard the rights and protections of the Constitution
    it's not "namecalling" unless it's unsupported by evidence
    if it's demonstrable and evidence clearly supports the claim, it's moved from the realm of defamation into the realm of empirical fact. I would state it's potential for unproven or untested claim, however Vociferous and others have made similar statements in various threads supporting the claim with evidence you have specifically chosen to ignore.
    repeatedly
     
  21. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,384
    That is false.
    Bias in a study can be corrected for, if the study is otherwise solid, because you can see where it's coming from. You can examine its methods, data, and analysis, for yourself. There are often facts, data, informative features, in a biased study.

    In addition, you have demonstrated that you are incapable of discerning bias in a study. You consistently mistake stance, support, favor to one side or another, nature of the conclusions drawn, for bias. An unbiased study is one that is neutral with respect to the subject being studied - the facts on the ground - not the political or intellectual divisions surrounding the arguments in which it is found. It is common for an unbiased study to strongly back an opinion - not to appear neutral with respect to the opinions extant.

    You can see what that blunder looks like in other people you are not too close to by examining Schmelzer's posting on American racial politics, climate change, and other subjects in which he has no base of knowledge. He assumes a lack of bias implies a middle ground stance, a compromise between the apparent "sides" of the public discussion. That is not the case - the facts of the matter are densely clustered in one "side", and an unbiased study in those areas will normally resemble a polemic in its analysis and conclusions.

    Another example: For the last forty years or so in the US - not as an inevitability but as a circumstance easily observed - in most fields reality has favored the positions and stances commonly labeled "liberal". That may change some day, but until it does studies that have no bias are often going to look like liberal position papers.

    That is not the case - in my opinion, which I argue for with evidence etc - in the field of gun control and governance of firearm ownership. But one must still determine and evaluate bias in a study with reference to physical reality - not political position.
    It's a true claim. Insisting it's false does not make it so.
    Once again, as explained to you before: I did not do that. I assumed nothing of the kind. You have no evidence that I made assumptions in the matter, and plenty of evidence (the arguments, etc) that I did not.
    You might be dealing with an aberrant notion of what the word "assume" means. It is not a synonym for having been persuaded by evidence and argument.
    No, it wasn't. You guys need to realize that when are wrong about stuff you aren't pointing things out. You're just typing noise.
    And so it is namecalling, in you guys's case. "Liar" and "lying" and so forth, for example, you have no evidence for - none.
    All of them complete bullshit. But carry on - It's less work for me when you are more obvious.
    Note, for example, that you just devoted an entire post to shithead irrelevancies that were clearly going have no influence on me and contribute nothing to the thread. Whereas my response somewhat bails you out, and directs the discussion into matters relevant to raw data involving gun homicides as if you had intended that. You're welcome.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2018

Share This Page