Liberals Lying about Guns Again

[houndawg]

I saw that, but he tries so hard and we know what he really meant to say..

No you didn't.

Did so.

[JohnStOnge]

We are a semi-violent country, with the #1 gun ownership rate in the world, and one of, if not the highest rate of gun homicides for developed nations. Sometimes, it's helpful to skip past JSO's minutia and bullshit to see the basic point.

Lots of guns does ≠ less gun homicides.

You're actually hitting on one thing I think is a trick of the "other side." Terminology like "developed nations." That's done a lot. Select the nations to compare the United States to so one can create the impression one wants to create.

What are the criteria for classifying a nation as a "developed nation?"

And why is it that the United States has more homicides NOT related to guns than Switzerland has in toto (gun related homicides as well as others)? If that is the case why are we thinking it's "cool" to group the United States with Switzerland as though being "developed nations" makes them "the same?" Like it's somehow "valid" to compare the United States to Switzerland but not "valid" to compare it to Brazil?

Same with a other countries that are usually on the list of "developed nations" people compare the United States to, by the way. The United States has a higher homicide rate than the nations typically selected for such lists do even when all you look at at is United States homicides not related to guns. For instance: If you do that math with that table I linked the United States rate of homicides NOT involving guns is 1.48. The TOTAL homicide rate for France is 0.63. For Norway it's 0.62. For Germany it's 0.72. for England/Wales it's 1.1. For Japan it's 0.56. So on and so forth.

So WHY is it so "valid" to group the United States with countries like that? It's pretty obvious that something "different" is going on in the United States beyond gun availability. Even if you assumed that NONE of the United States homicides associated with gun use would have occurred if there were no guns in the United States (a questionable assumption) the United States would have a substantially higher homicide rate than those other "developed countries."

The United States does not have higher homicide rates than countries like England, Norway, Germany, Canada, etc. because of guns. It's something else. And that's not really debatable when you look at the numbers.

[Ibanez]

quote]I think someone could assume that around 1998, some sort of gun law went into effect. That's just me. There is a good enough decline that I think once can assume some sort of law has taken place.

But there was a bigger decline between 1988 and 1989 then there was between 1997 and 1998. Why would you not think the law went into effect between 1988 and 1989?[/quote]

I already said I see that. Look up, homeboy.

[JohnStOnge]

Just because I went through the trouble of doing it I'll report on it. I did lines of best fit for the numbers at the tops of the 9 "red" years and the first 9 "blue" years. That was to look at the slopes of the lines...the trends. The slopes were very close. -19.9 for the red years and -18.9 for the first 9 blue years. And of course the difference is not "significant."

If you're wondering why I didn't do all the blue years it's because I was trying to be fair. You can see that things flatten out after a while. So I just compared the first nine years as that was a number of years equal to the red years. If I do look at the slope for all of the blue years it's -11.7. No nearly as "steep" as for the red years. The difference is still not "significant."

Bottom line is it's all consistent with what I said. There's a downward trend overall and no indication that there was some notable change in the way things were going when the gun control law went into effect.

FYI the interpretation of the slope is that you construct a line of best fits through the points and the slope tells you how much the position of points on the line change as you advance in terms of years. So like for the line for the red years, as you move down the line, the position of points on the line goes down by 19.9 gun deaths for each year you move down the line.

[houndawg]

Just because I went through the trouble of doing it I'll report on it. I did lines of best fit for the numbers at the tops of the 9 "red" years and the first 9 "blue" years. That was to look at the slopes of the lines...the trends. The slopes were very close. -19.9 for the red years and -18.9 for the first 9 blue years. And of course the difference is not "significant."

If you're wondering why I didn't do all the blue years it's because I was trying to be fair. You can see that things flatten out after a while. So I just compared the first nine years as that was a number of years equal to the red years. If I do look at the slope for all of the blue years it's -11.7. No nearly as "steep" as for the red years. The difference is still not "significant."

Bottom line is it's all consistent with what I said. There's a downward trend overall and no indication that there was some notable change in the way things were going when the gun control law went into effect.

FYI the interpretation of the slope is that you construct a line of best fits through the points and the slope tells you how much the position of points on the line change as you advance in terms of years. So like for the line for the red years, as you move down the line, the position of points on the line goes down by 19.9 gun deaths for each year you move down the line.

Yes, we've all had an elementary statistics class but do go on. And on. And on......

[JohnStOnge]

Yes, we've all had an elementary statistics class...

Well then I guess the next thing I should expect to see you type is, "you're right, John." Because if you understand statistics at an elementary level you can see that I am correct about those two graphs.

[kalm]

Yes, we've all had an elementary statistics class...

Well then I guess the next thing I should expect to see you type is, "you're right, John." Because if you understand statistics at an elementary level you can see that I am correct about those two graphs.

You've done nothing but twist statistics to fit your ideology.

An honest approach would be admitting we have a violent and well armed culture and that ain't gonna change.

[JohnStOnge]

You've done nothing but twist statistics to fit your ideology.

An honest approach would be admitting we have a violent and well armed culture and that ain't gonna change.

No worries. I know you can't be serious.

We have a well armed culture. In the context of the planet we have kind of a middle of the pack culture in terms of violence. It is not one of the more violent countries on the planet.

What's dishonest is to proffer the idea that, to the extent that the United States has violence issues, it's because of the gun ownership rate. Again: There is no support in the data for the idea that a higher gun ownership rate means a higher homicide rate or even a higher gun homicide rate on a country by country basis. That's just the objective truth.

The twisting of the truth is on the part of those who just have a fixation with guns and want to blame the tools associated with violence. What I provided at the start of this thread is about as clear an example of being deceptive with statistics to support an ideology as you're ever going to see and it's amazing to me that at this point there is anybody participating in this discussion that can't see that.

[kalm]

You've done nothing but twist statistics to fit your ideology.

An honest approach would be admitting we have a violent and well armed culture and that ain't gonna change.

No worries. I know you can't be serious.

We have a well armed culture. In the context of the planet we have kind of a middle of the pack culture in terms of violence. It is not one of the more violent countries on the planet.

What's dishonest is to proffer the idea that, to the extent that the United States has violence issues, it's because of the gun ownership rate. Again: There is no support in the data for the idea that a higher gun ownership rate means a higher homicide rate or even a higher gun homicide rate on a country by country basis. That's just the objective truth.

The twisting of the truth is on the part of those who just have a fixation with guns and want to blame the tools associated with violence. What I provided at the start of this thread is about as clear an example of being deceptive with statistics to support an ideology as you're ever going to see and it's amazing to me that at this point there is anybody participating in this discussion that can't see that.

We only trail Mexico in murder rate amongst OECD countries.

We are violent and well armed. Guns are an efficient murder machine. Them's the facts. No need to manipulate them.

[LeadBolt]

Interesting segment from ABC's 20/20 exploring the liberal myth about gun control reducing crime:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHLsnzZgdPw[/youtube]

[kalm]

Interesting segment from ABC's 20/20 exploring the liberal myth about gun control reducing crime:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHLsnzZgdPw[/youtube]

It might be interesting but if that's Stassel in the screen shot...ugh.

[YoUDeeMan]

At 2:49 of that video, it mentions that felons fear an armed victim much more than the police. And furthermore, those felons say that it doesn't matter if the law says they can't carry guns...they'll carry one anyway.

That really is game, set, match.

People should be able to carry guns. Sure, do a background check...and background checks don't take that much time. But people should be able to carry guns.

Does anyone think the French terrorists would have been able to kill 130 people if just a few dozen people out of the crowd had guns? They casually walked around and reloaded several times while helpless people waited to be shot. That is the crazy part.

[LeadBolt]

Interesting segment from ABC's 20/20 exploring the liberal myth about gun control reducing crime:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHLsnzZgdPw[/youtube]

It might be interesting but if that's Stassel in the screen shot...ugh.

Yeah, that's a reason to ignore the facts...

[houndawg]

At 2:49 of that video, it mentions that felons fear an armed victim much more than the police. And furthermore, those felons say that it doesn't matter if the law says they can't carry guns...they'll carry one anyway.

That really is game, set, match.

People should be able to carry guns. Sure, do a background check...and background checks don't take that much time. But people should be able to carry guns.

Does anyone think the French terrorists would have been able to kill 130 people if just a few dozen people out of the crowd had guns? They casually walked around and reloaded several times while helpless people waited to be shot. That is the crazy part.

Everybody speeds. WTF do we bother having speed limits?

[CAA Flagship]

At 2:49 of that video, it mentions that felons fear an armed victim much more than the police. And furthermore, those felons say that it doesn't matter if the law says they can't carry guns...they'll carry one anyway.

That really is game, set, match.

People should be able to carry guns. Sure, do a background check...and background checks don't take that much time. But people should be able to carry guns.

Does anyone think the French terrorists would have been able to kill 130 people if just a few dozen people out of the crowd had guns? They casually walked around and reloaded several times while helpless people waited to be shot. That is the crazy part.

Everybody speeds. WTF do we bother having speed limits?

The government created the Prius to curb speeding.

[kalm]

It might be interesting but if that's Stassel in the screen shot...ugh.

Yeah, that's a reason to ignore the facts...

Touche'!

Fact: Never trust a guy with a stache like that. Except for Magnum. He was cool.

[CAA Flagship]

Yeah, that's a reason to ignore the facts...

Touche'!

Fact: Never trust a guy with a stache like that. Except for Magnum. He was cool.

[JohnStOnge]

We only trail Mexico in murder rate amongst OECD countries.

We are violent and well armed. Guns are an efficient murder machine. Them's the facts. No need to manipulate them.

I didn't know what OECD countries are until you mentioned it but I looked it up and if it's the list at http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpar ... ntries.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I don't think that's true. I guess there's some distinction between "murder" and "homicide" but if you look at the homicide rates you can derive from the table at the link I posted earlier Chile and Estonia have higher homicide rates.

But why is the list of OECD countries the standard? You say I manipulate the facts. But to me those who compare the United States to some SUBSET of the countries for which data are available are the ones manipulating the facts.

Like for instance, to me, when someone says that the United States has a higher homicide rate than other countries on the OECD list and mentions that the United States has the most guns the implication is that the reason the United States has a higher homicide rate is because it has guns.

But let's just compare the United States to another country on the OECD list. Just pick the first one: Austrailia.

If you look at the rate of homicides in the United States in the table i linked that did NOT involve guns, it's higher than the total homicide rate of Australia. So it's pretty clear that the reason for the United States having a higher homicide rate than Australia is NOT because the United States has guns. Even if you were to assume that NONE of the homicides in the United States would've happened anyway if there were not guns...a very questionable assumption...the United States would have a higher homicide rate even if guns didn't even exist. By comparing the two in that context you're promoting a false implication. Not you per se. But somebody who selects a subset of countries like that in order to try to make the "gun control" point is.

It's much more honest to just lay out ALL the data. And when you lay out ALL the data the United States is a "middle of the pack" country in terms of homicides. Also, when you lay out ALL the data it's clear that the idea that there is an association between a higher gun ownership rate and a higher homicide rate is not supported.

[kalm]

We only trail Mexico in murder rate amongst OECD countries.

We are violent and well armed. Guns are an efficient murder machine. Them's the facts. No need to manipulate them.

I didn't know what OECD countries are until you mentioned it but I looked it up and if it's the list at http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpar ... ntries.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I don't think that's true. I guess there's some distinction between "murder" and "homicide" but if you look at the homicide rates you can derive from the table at the link I posted earlier Chile and Estonia have higher homicide rates.

But why is the list of OECD countries the standard? You say I manipulate the facts. But to me those who compare the United States to some SUBSET of the countries for which data are available are the ones manipulating the facts.

Like for instance, to me, when someone says that the United States has a higher homicide rate than other countries on the OECD list and mentions that the United States has the most guns the implication is that the reason the United States has a higher homicide rate is because it has guns.

But let's just compare the United States to another country on the OECD list. Just pick the first one: Austrailia.

If you look at the rate of homicides in the United States in the table i linked that did NOT involve guns, it's higher than the total homicide rate of Australia. So it's pretty clear that the reason for the United States having a higher homicide rate than Australia is NOT because the United States has guns. Even if you were to assume that NONE of the homicides in the United States would've happened anyway if there were not guns...a very questionable assumption...the United States would have a higher homicide rate even if guns didn't even exist. By comparing the two in that context you're promoting a false implication. Not you per se. But somebody who selects a subset of countries like that in order to try to make the "gun control" point is.

It's much more honest to just lay out ALL the data. And when you lay out ALL the data the United States is a "middle of the pack" country in terms of homicides. Also, when you lay out ALL the data it's clear that the idea that there is an association between a higher gun ownership rate and a higher homicide rate is not supported.

Maybe. If want to ignore other factors like economics and law enforcement.

[CID1990]

Does anyone think the French terrorists would have been able to kill 130 people if just a few dozen people out of the crowd had guns? They casually walked around and reloaded several times while helpless people waited to be shot. That is the crazy part.

Remember when those Sudanese (or whatever they were) dudes hit that British Army bandsman right outside his base with a car and then hacked him up with meat cleavers? Then stood around yelling at bystanders for a good ten minutes before the police showed up?

That crap would never have happened in Fayetteville, NC. In half the time it took the police to get there, half the Bubbas within five miles of that place would have showed up and had their asses already at the taxidermist.

If I'm in the middle of a shooting like that and I see some dude reloading I'm not going to sit there.. better to die trying to break that thing off in his ass rather than dying like cattle.

[DSUrocks07]

I didn't know what OECD countries are until you mentioned it but I looked it up and if it's the list at http://www.oecd.org/about/membersandpar ... ntries.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; I don't think that's true. I guess there's some distinction between "murder" and "homicide" but if you look at the homicide rates you can derive from the table at the link I posted earlier Chile and Estonia have higher homicide rates.

But why is the list of OECD countries the standard? You say I manipulate the facts. But to me those who compare the United States to some SUBSET of the countries for which data are available are the ones manipulating the facts.

Like for instance, to me, when someone says that the United States has a higher homicide rate than other countries on the OECD list and mentions that the United States has the most guns the implication is that the reason the United States has a higher homicide rate is because it has guns.

But let's just compare the United States to another country on the OECD list. Just pick the first one: Austrailia.

If you look at the rate of homicides in the United States in the table i linked that did NOT involve guns, it's higher than the total homicide rate of Australia. So it's pretty clear that the reason for the United States having a higher homicide rate than Australia is NOT because the United States has guns. Even if you were to assume that NONE of the homicides in the United States would've happened anyway if there were not guns...a very questionable assumption...the United States would have a higher homicide rate even if guns didn't even exist. By comparing the two in that context you're promoting a false implication. Not you per se. But somebody who selects a subset of countries like that in order to try to make the "gun control" point is.

It's much more honest to just lay out ALL the data. And when you lay out ALL the data the United States is a "middle of the pack" country in terms of homicides. Also, when you lay out ALL the data it's clear that the idea that there is an association between a higher gun ownership rate and a higher homicide rate is not supported.

Maybe. If want to ignore other factors like economics and law enforcement.

Isn't the whole point of politics is to ignore any other data that may deviate from the desired talking point?

The left wants to restrict gun ownership in the US. Which is why Obama is going on national television promoting gun control legislation as this grand cure-all while blatantly ignoring the other factors; employment, economics,and law enforcement; that also play a role.

Anything for Obama to be "the man who fixed the gun problem".

[DSUrocks07]

Does anyone think the French terrorists would have been able to kill 130 people if just a few dozen people out of the crowd had guns? They casually walked around and reloaded several times while helpless people waited to be shot. That is the crazy part.

Remember when those Sudanese (or whatever they were) dudes hit that British Army bandsman right outside his base with a car and then hacked him up with meat cleavers? Then stood around yelling at bystanders for a good ten minutes before the police showed up?

That crap would never have happened in Fayetteville, NC. In half the time it took the police to get there, half the Bubbas within five miles of that place would have showed up and had their asses already at the taxidermist.

If I'm in the middle of a shooting like that and I see some dude reloading I'm not going to sit there.. better to die trying to break that thing off in his ass rather than dying like cattle.

If it happened in NC, leftists who be up in arms for these innocent foreigners only armed with knifes being killed, and more proof at how the south is racist. Also muh religious freedom (but not Christians tho, fuck them)

Also Bush

Also muh gun control

[Baldy]

Does anyone think the French terrorists would have been able to kill 130 people if just a few dozen people out of the crowd had guns? They casually walked around and reloaded several times while helpless people waited to be shot. That is the crazy part.

Remember when those Sudanese (or whatever they were) dudes hit that British Army bandsman right outside his base with a car and then hacked him up with meat cleavers? Then stood around yelling at bystanders for a good ten minutes before the police showed up?

That crap would never have happened in Fayetteville, NC. In half the time it took the police to get there, half the Bubbas within five miles of that place would have showed up and had their asses already at the taxidermist.

If I'm in the middle of a shooting like that and I see some dude reloading I'm not going to sit there.. better to die trying to break that thing off in his ass rather than dying like cattle.

[kalm]

Maybe. If want to ignore other factors like economics and law enforcement.

Isn't the whole point of politics is to ignore any other data that may deviate from the desired talking point?

The left wants to restrict gun ownership in the US. Which is why Obama is going on national television promoting gun control legislation as this grand cure-all while blatantly ignoring the other factors; employment, economics,and law enforcement; that also play a role.

Anything for Obama to be "the man who fixed the gun problem".

Yes, that is apparently the point of politics. Thanks for agreeing with me.

[JohnStOnge]

Maybe. If want to ignore other factors like economics and law enforcement.

I think it's fair to say that. In fact I've been thinking about taking the time to look up something like per capita income by country then do something to take that into account when looking at the gun ownership rate/homicide rate association. Don't know how you'd quantify "law enforcement" to take that into account.

But that's the kind of thing you'd do if you were honestly evaluating. You'd propose factors that might have impacts on homicide rates then put them in a model that included data from all countries you had data for. You wouldn't just kind of arbitrarily select countries to compare the United States to.

And that relates to what I was getting at with the post at the start of this thread. The guy just selected a small handful of countries to compare the United States to with absolutely no basis for doing that. To me it REALLY smacks of "cherry picking."