Gun Grabbers, now what are you going to do? - Page 8 - MacRumors Forums
Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 6, 2013, 07:50 PM   #176
Ugg
macrumors 68000
 
Ugg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Penryn
Send a message via AIM to Ugg
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostngone View Post
Yes and I am sure in places that has stricter alcohol laws you would have less DWIs and if you can find a place that had stricter knife laws you would see less stabbings.

Even if you got rid of the gun do you think it is going to reduce other crimes like rape, robbery or assault?
Alcoholism is largely a result of geography, just like Multiple Sclerosis is a more of a problem the further north you go, so is alcohol addiction. There's no such correlation with gun based violence. Please explain. How is it possibl that Americans are intrinsically more violent than other human beings?
__________________
Check out <Peter's family tree!
Ugg is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2013, 07:57 PM   #177
lostngone
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502a
 
lostngone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Anchorage
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ugg View Post
Please explain. How is it possibl that Americans are intrinsically more violent than other human beings?
I can't...

You just made the statement "Americans are intrinsically more violent", correct? So if that is the case, just removing a single tool isn't going to make us any less violent. Sure the use of firearms will drop but if we are "intrinsically more violent" won't we just learn how to use a different tool with the same outcome?
__________________
I would much rather go to my grave never needing my gun, than go there wishing I had it.
lostngone is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 6, 2013, 08:01 PM   #178
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostngone View Post
Sure the use of firearms will drop but if we are "intrinsically more violent" won't we just learn how to use a different tool with the same outcome?
Guns are a more effective killing tool than knives, clubs, fists, etc.

That's why the murder rate in the U.S. is higher than in other first world countries ... because we put the most efficient killing tool in the hands of people willing to kill.

(I don't even know why I bother trying to answer him. He's pretty obviously has me on his Ignore List. But that doesn't stop others from seeing my opinion.)
citizenzen is online now   5 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 12:07 AM   #179
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Guns are a more effective killing tool than knives, clubs, fists, etc.

That's why the murder rate in the U.S. is higher than in other first world countries ... because we put the most efficient killing tool in the hands of people willing to kill.

(I don't even know why I bother trying to answer him. He's pretty obviously has me on his Ignore List. But that doesn't stop others from seeing my opinion.)
Doesn't mean that others, by proxy, couldn't produce that for you.

Either way, your opinion just so happens to be quite correct.

BL.
bradl is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 12:20 AM   #180
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Many mass-shootings have occurred in areas where concealed carry is not possible due to local laws and local policy. Rather than telling me I am wrong, I advise getting a CCW and trying to carry in a metropolitan area while following all laws and seeing yourself. It's not how either side depicts. There are a ton of places you can't take a firearm even in carry areas. With that said, the other issue is that just owning a gun and without any sort of training makes a person more of a danger to themselves and everyone around them than anything else. An idiot with a gun is just that...
Occam's Razor suggests you're wrong.

The attacks occurred in a diverse set of states in rural, suburban and urban areas. The attacks occurred in places with armed guards, no guns at all, loose gun standards, and strict gun laws.

But, nearly all of the shooters had a personal connection to the place they attacked.

So, how can you argue that the shooters chose gun-free zones as targets?

Quote:
...No one is naturally gifted with the ability to perform in a stress-shooting environment in which they may face gunfire themselves and must be able to shoot accurately enough to hit only the intended target, be aware of what surrounds the target, while simultaneously shooting fast enough to incapacitate the target. However, it is a skill that virtually anyone can master. And it is a skill that is inherently linked to safety. Is requesting people that carry a gun be highly proficient unreasonable? I don't think so personally...especially since anyone can become proficient. We do the same with law enforcement or driving a car. It would arguably increase public safety.
If you want to link gun ownership to proficiency testing, I'd agree. But, the evolution of anti-lock brakes in cars provides a valuable analogue. Most people were taught to feather the brake, but in crashes, most people slammed on the brakes and locked them up. Therefore, car makers included a technological solution to solve a fundamental cognitive problem in humans.

Quote:
...
NC recently expanded CCW rights. It will be interesting to see how this affects violent crime rates, and probably the strongest single examination to date because the timing of the change comes when other changes that will affect violent crime are generally low...including economic shift. We also will be able to log better data than previous studies. The one exception, of course, is ObamaCare, in which more people will have access to mental health services. It will almost surely become a rallying point for one side a few years from now. I'll reexamine my stance after the data comes back.
An additional counterpoint. Since 2009, the NRA has successfully pushed for legislation making firearms more available and yet the number of mass shootings has increased or remained stable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by lostngone View Post
...In the last ten years how many mass shooting have there been where the majority of people were armed?
As above, Occam's Razor comes into play. There are few places in the United States where the "majority of people [are] armed." We could read the data and conclude that you're also safe in voodoo churches.

While no mass shootings have taken place at gun ranges, there have been murders at ranges (including a former Navy SEAL) and in public areas throughout the United States. The connection between every shooting of this kind is the shooter's connection to the place or a person.

If you believe the link is that strong, review the 169 cases and illustrate how many of them were in "gun free" zones, i.e. zones were one couldn't not carry a gun. That most Americans choose not to carry a gun is a fundamentally different subject and illustrative, in my opinion, that most people don't want to carry a gun and would therefore rather that other people did not.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 02:29 AM   #181
.Andy
macrumors 68030
 
.Andy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Mergui Archipelago
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostngone View Post
So if that is the case, just removing a single tool isn't going to make us any less violent. Sure the use of firearms will drop but if we are "intrinsically more violent" won't we just learn how to use a different tool with the same outcome?
If you can "learn to use" other weapons as substitutes for guns then there is no need to have guns. Guns can be banned and you can still overthrow the government if it turns on you with these other weapons.
__________________
Each man's death diminishes me, for I am involved in mankind. Therefore, send not to know for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee.
.Andy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 07:37 AM   #182
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostngone View Post
The logic behind this sentence is the problem with most anti-gun people.

Even if you could outlaw all guns and somehow get rid of every single last one. Those people you are so scared of, still exist.

The gun is not the primary issue here, it is the people that choose to use them to harm/kill people.

Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control.
Except, you think differently than many other people. Do you really think walking into a convenience store with a 2x4 will give a robber the same balls as walking in with a gun? Do you honestly believe that? Do you really think that he thinks he will have the same amount of success, or a good chance at "winning"? Don't be dense. The gun, being a tool of immediate effect at a distance, makes people much more bold than having to be within arms' reach of their opponent.

It's the combination of people and guns. People and clubs, people and knives, or people and whips are not going to be nearly as effective in completing their crime, and will more than likely not attempt it.

A person with a gun knows he has a much better chance of a successful robbery than a person without one, no matter what other "tool" he is carrying. Even if his opponent has a gun, the person with the element of surprise has the upper hand. If guns didn't exist, I guarantee you that the amount of robberies would go down, along with other crimes.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 10:05 AM   #183
stubeeef
macrumors 68030
 
stubeeef's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
We should outlaw bad drugs like crack so our citizens are safe-and to keep us safe, outlaw illegal immigration.
__________________
Change!
Real Change?
7in2 Fore!
stubeeef is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 10:09 AM   #184
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubeeef View Post
We should outlaw bad drugs like crack so our citizens are safe-and to keep us safe, outlaw illegal immigration.
Outlaw being mean.

citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 11:48 AM   #185
chown33
macrumors 603
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickZac View Post
Do you really want me to criticize the article directly, or will you immediately tell me what I am wrong?
I wanted you to post your reasons/rationale for discounting it. Now you have.

I'm not sure what the "what" (underlined) means in that sentence. Perhaps you meant "where" or "that", but I'm just guessing.



Quote:
Look at some of the figures in that study which show there are more than just a few countries in which gun ownership per capita is quite high, but the intended crime rates are nowhere in the predictive modeling base.
Please explain what "intended crime rates" means. The word "intended" is confusing.

I'm not sure what your statement means. I think you're referring to Figure B in the AMJ article, "Guns per capita per country and crime rates". That's the one with correlation=0.33 and P=0.10. So I don't understand how you see a "nowhere" when Figure B is given, and the sources for crime rate data are listed in the AMJ article.

Quote:
There are countries with strict gun laws that have low murder rates, and higher murder rates.
Please point to where gun laws are part of the data, or part of the resulting correlation.

If you're saying it's important data that should be included, then please provide a source of data on gun law strictness by country. Or are you just guessing at that data, and guesstimating the correlation to firearm death rates?

Quote:
Doesn't the lack of a completely horizontal line suggest that actions taking such as proficiency requirements have an affect on the outcome which the authors failed to consider with any acceptable effort?
Please explain where a horizontal line would be. Perfect correlation would be a line with slope +1.0.

Again, if you're saying proficiency requirements are important data, please provide a source.

Quote:
It's kind of like the whole standardized math scores and shoe size fallacy.
I'm unaware of this fallacy. Please explain.

Quote:
Perhaps they failed to consider other variables?

Oh I got one...how about the inequality-adjusted Human Development Index? Or just the standard of living? If you don't live in the US, I'll forgive you, but the US is not very high on the ieHDI. The countries with lower murder rates have substantially better healthcare than countries with higher rates.
First, the AMJ figures are for total gun death rates (murder, suicide, accident, etc.), not just murder. Total gun death rates includes suicides and accidents, not just murders.

Quote:
The countries with lower rates have substantially higher ieHDIs. The countries with lower murder rates are scoring substantially higher on Urban Revitalization index scales. The countries with lower murder rates are consistently scoring better with education. The countries with lower murder rates have been trending gains in the standard of living.
For an example of a country high on the ieHDI index, yet a high death rate by firearm, see Switzerland.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_in_Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y-adjusted_HDI

It's 7th from the top on ieHDI, yet has the 3rd highest firearm death rate:
  • United States 10.2
  • South Africa 9.41
  • Switzerland 3.84
Please explain this apparent anomaly.


Quote:
there was no significant correlation...r=.33
fo reals? lolz

http://faculty.quinnipiac.edu/libart...tatistics.html
The complete statement from the AMJ article is:
However, there was no significant correlation (P = .10) between guns per capita per country and crime rate (r = .33), or between mental illness and crime rate (r = 0.32; P = .11).
And from your cited URL:
... These are only crude estimates for interpreting strengths of correlations:

If r = +.70 or higher Very strong positive relationship
+.40 to +.69 Strong positive relationship
+.30 to +.39 Moderate positive relationship
+.20 to +.29 weak positive relationship
+.01 to +.19 No or negligible relationship
-.01 to -.19 No or negligible relationship
-.20 to -.29 weak negative relationship
-.30 to -.39 Moderate negative relationship
-.40 to -.69 Strong negative relationship
-.70 or higher Very strong negative relationship
[Bold added]
Now let's review the other correlations in the AMJ article:
Among the 27 developed countries, there was a significant positive correlation between guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths (r = 0.80; P <.0001). In addition, there was a positive correlation (r = 0.52; P = .005) between mental illness burden in a country and firearm-related deaths.
So using the words of the "crude estimates" for strengths of correlation:
  • guns per capita per country and the rate of firearm-related deaths = Very strong positive relationship
  • mental illness burden in a country and firearm-related deaths = Strong positive relationship
  • guns per capita per country and crime rate = Moderate positive relationship
  • mental illness and crime rate = Moderate positive relationship
So: two Moderate positive relationships vs. a Strong and a Very strong. Yet you focus on the Moderate results and quibble about the word "significant". Way to miss the wood for the trees.

As for the use of the word "significant" in the article, I suspect you've never taken a course in statistics. The "Moderate positive" relationships have P values of 0.10 and 0.11. The Strong and Very strong relationships have P values of .005 and <.0001, respectively. Once, again, missing the wood for the trees.

Quote:
As the article noted, mental health issues=more firearm deaths. I most certainly agree. Gun control isn't going to fix that. Healthcare reform will. Banning 20 round magazines isn't going to treat an undiagnosed illness that someone can't get treatment for because the cost of medical care is too expensive. Speaking of which, the countries with lower murder rates trended better mental health ratings, and have substantially better mental health treatment networks.
Did you do an actual statistical analysis, or is that just your seat-of-the-pants guesstimate? If it's the former, please post your results.

And what about the anomaly of Switzerland? Can you explain that?

Quote:
What about the source data? The specific source has been used in a variety of articles. Consequently, the articles have similar conclusions. Do you have information on how this data is sourced?

http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/filea...P18-Demand.pdf
Quote:
I am sure you will tell me I am wrong, that the UN is completely unbiased, as are contributors to the parent organization they sourced data from.
You're wrong.
About me telling you "the UN is completely unbiased..." etc. Nice straw man you've got there.

Quote:
Does it make the study wrong? Not necessarily, but last I checked, funding sources were enough to shake the foundation of a 'without doubt'.
Quote:
Some of the issues most strongly correlated with crime were not even given consideration or mention.
What issues? Please provide examples. If you're referring to ieHDI, then the numbers are in the Wikipedia article I linked to, and the AMJ article also sources its numbers, so you can do your own statistical analysis and post the results.

If you're referring to what was used by the AMJ article, they list their sources for crime rate.

Quote:
No explanation was provided for why the modeling produced inconsistent results in terms of dramatic variations from mean figures.
The paper didn't present a cause, i.e. a "why". Nor did it attempt to. It only presented a correlation, which you seem to have problems accepting as valid, despite "Strong" and "Very strong" positive relationships.

Quote:
And if you think I am saying that the current level of gun deaths is acceptable, I am most certainly not nor am I saying no action should be taken.
Another straw man, putting words in my mouth.

Also, "acceptable" is a judgement value, not a statistical one. Nevertheless, I'd agree that the current death rate isn't acceptable.

Last edited by chown33; Oct 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM. Reason: fix typos
chown33 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 01:24 PM   #186
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by stubeeef View Post
We should outlaw bad drugs like crack so our citizens are safe-and to keep us safe, outlaw illegal immigration.
The bold should have been done in 1492.

Seriously, if we should outlaw anything, we should outlaw your avatar. Everytime I see it, I want to complain to my doctor about a bad case of garbage gut.

BL.
bradl is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 01:30 PM   #187
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by chown33 View Post

I'm unaware of this fallacy. Please explain.
Quote:
A similar fallacy is “Cum hoc ergo propter hoc” which is Latin for “with this, therefore because of this.” The difference is that cum hoc fallacies involve a third factor, or another event that is the real cause. In a cum hoc there are three events, A, B, and C. A is said to cause C (like in a post hoc), but the third factor (event B) is not being considered as the real cause. For example, someone might argue that “increase in shoe size causes an increase in math scores.” Event A (increase in shoe size) is said to cause event C (increase in math scores), but Lecture 3.1 INFORMAL FALLACIES the problem is that event B (the growth of children) is not being considered as the real cause to BOTH A AND C. That is, the normal growth of children causes both shoe sizes AND math scores to increase.
http://cinnamonphilosophy.yolasite.c...0FALLACIES.pdf

A related observation is that if you take a bunch of random variables, a small number of them will be correlated by accident. Coincidences are statistical certainties.

==

While the observations are standard probability and statistics, and logic, it would be a different kind of fallacy to assume that since such an accidental correlation is possible, such a correlation must be accidental. It would also be an error to suppose that social scientists don't know about this kind of fallacy. In fact, they look for opportunities to do various kinds of longitudinal studies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_study

That, in fact, longitudinal studies have been done that indicate that when firearm accessibility is restricted in a given country, the overall murder rate falls.

Look at Figure 1 in the below study carefully:

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/12/6/365.full

Last edited by jnpy!$4g3cwk; Oct 7, 2013 at 01:31 PM. Reason: typo
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 7, 2013, 01:56 PM   #188
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
Seriously, if we should outlaw anything, we should outlaw your avatar. Everytime I see it, I want to complain to my doctor about a bad case of garbage gut.
Hah. The fringe benefit of not displaying avatars.

I don't care about how clever anybody's avatars or signatures are.

That all just gets in the way of the opinions posted.
citizenzen is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2013, 02:52 PM   #189
hulugu
macrumors 68000
 
hulugu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: the faraway towns
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostngone View Post
Here are a few where the general populace could NOT carry or it was severely limited to point that it makes it highly impractical.

...I can post a lot more...
Still waiting for your analysis of the other 163 cases.
__________________
I look like a soldier; I feel like a thief
hulugu is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 8, 2013, 04:18 PM   #190
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by lostngone View Post
Washington Navy Yard shooting
So you're including the one in a naval base where there will be lots of trained armed soldiers as somewhere where guns are severely limited?

Seriously?
__________________
If they have to tell you every day they are fair you can bet they arent, if they tell you they are balanced then you should know they are not - Don't Hurt me
Eraserhead is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2013, 12:26 PM   #191
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eraserhead View Post
So you're including the one in a naval base where there will be lots of trained armed soldiers as somewhere where guns are severely limited?

Seriously?
Many military bases have firearms restrictions in place, so it's not necessarily the case that all of these soldiers will have weapons. Security personnel would have them.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2013, 02:40 PM   #192
bradl
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
Many military bases have firearms restrictions in place, so it's not necessarily the case that all of these soldiers will have weapons. Security personnel would have them.
I'm still waiting on a citation from lostngone from my request in the Navy Yard thread on proof that the security guards were "private security". Three weeks have gone by, and still no source for that claim.

BL.
bradl is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2013, 03:18 PM   #193
astrorider
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by bradl View Post
I'm still waiting on a citation from lostngone from my request in the Navy Yard thread on proof that the security guards were "private security". Three weeks have gone by, and still no source for that claim.

BL.
Here's the first link from searching "navy yard shooting private security":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_4012383.html

Quote:
Ridgell, a Maryland State Police trooper for 17 years before he entered the private security field, was known in Building 197 for his cheerful disposition and strict adherence to security procedures, said Vice Admiral William Hilarides, NAVSEA commander. Ridgell, an employee of Hawaii-based security contractor HBC Management Services, had been working the lobby for about a year when computer technician Aaron Alexis opened fire upstairs with the shotgun he had brought to work inside a bag when he entered the building that morning using a valid badge, according to the FBI.
You piqued my curiosity.
astrorider is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2013, 03:27 PM   #194
jnpy!$4g3cwk
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrorider View Post
Here's the first link from searching "navy yard shooting private security":
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_4012383.html

You piqued my curiosity.
I had the same question. I'm slightly, but not totally, surprised, since I've seen Marine Guards replaced in other contexts, as a cost-cutting measure. I was surprised the outsourcing went that far for this type of facility, though. I guess I shouldn't have been.
jnpy!$4g3cwk is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Gun Thread. Vanilla Ice Politics, Religion, Social Issues 427 Jun 1, 2014 05:54 PM
First "smart gun" gun goes on sale in California lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 106 Mar 13, 2014 10:24 AM
Anti-gun/violence activist caught with gun in a school lostngone Politics, Religion, Social Issues 16 Feb 12, 2014 12:32 AM
Another gun death MuddyPaws1 Politics, Religion, Social Issues 150 Apr 30, 2013 04:36 AM
Gun Rights Advocates Designate January 19th, 2013 as "Gun Appreciation Day" bradl Politics, Religion, Social Issues 167 Jan 25, 2013 08:00 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:53 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC