General Discussion

sigmasix

(794 posts)

106. obscuring the issue

Tue Apr 23, 2013, 10:55 PM

Apr 2013

Right wing anti-intellectualism disguised as critique is still right wing Anti-intellectualism. The CDC and many other legit peer reviewed studies have indicated repeatedly that there is a relationship. There is a particularly virulent strain of irresponsibility being displayed by the NRA and the rest of the "guns on demand" crowd. Grown-ups take responsibility for thier actions, words and deeds. Gun nuts, the NRA and other domestic terror organizations have been working overtime to communicate this type of anti-American refusal to take responsibility for thier actions to as many paranoid right wingers as possible.
I understand the desire to see yourself as a maverick gun owner, but adults dont continue the games of childhood. "shoot! shoot! bang! bang! I'm the hero!" is what little boys do. Grown men and women actually understand that the world is more complicated than the imaginary cops and robbers games of little boys.

Wasnt this OP a good refresher on the lengths right wing gun nuts will go to to evade responsibility and scientific facts. Next time we hear from them they can explain how smoking tobacco doesnt cause cancer.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

127 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Gun Ownership Neither Increases Nor Decreases the Crime Rate [View all] Recursion Apr 2013 OP

It most certainly adds to the death rate though... Bandit Apr 2013 #1

The death rate, yes, because it makes suicide much easier Recursion Apr 2013 #3

There have been more Americans killed by gun violence in the last decade than in every Bandit Apr 2013 #6

And twice as many were killed the decade before that Recursion Apr 2013 #9

I imagine it allows the data more context LanternWaste Apr 2013 #13

Fair enough. Like I said, we're more violent than the regression would suggest we "should" be Recursion Apr 2013 #15

+1 uponit7771 Apr 2013 #4

I have used guns as directed Jenoch Apr 2013 #8

So because you personally have not destroyed any humans, none could possibly have been destroyed? Bandit Apr 2013 #11

Guns were invented to kill. Jenoch Apr 2013 #12

Guns were *invented* to knock down walls and scare horses Recursion Apr 2013 #14

I suppose it depends on the definition of a 'gun'. Jenoch Apr 2013 #16

Neither have I. nt Mojorabbit Apr 2013 #24

Have you ever sold one, had one stolen, will you ever sell one, do you have kids? Hoyt Apr 2013 #35

The only gun I have sold was to my Jenoch Apr 2013 #49

There are a lot of Zimmermans, Loughners, NRA President's son, etc., too. Hoyt Apr 2013 #87

You are all over the place with this post. Jenoch Apr 2013 #108

If your favourite writer posted it, you still wouldn't accept it. Hoyt Apr 2013 #109

Accept what? Jenoch Apr 2013 #111

Perfect example of statistical misuse Progressive dog Apr 2013 #2

What are you talking about? The data are right there Recursion Apr 2013 #5

Holy crap-his interpretation of the data is a CONCLUSION Progressive dog Apr 2013 #7

His CONCLUSION is "guns don't make us more or less safe" Recursion Apr 2013 #10

Oh I get, you just made up your conclusion Progressive dog Apr 2013 #17

Both of those are true, though I only posted the data for the second half Recursion Apr 2013 #19

When data contradicts "common sense", what you thought was "common sense" was wrong Taitertots Apr 2013 #25

You are joking, right Progressive dog Apr 2013 #36

How convenient... Only analysis and data that you agree with is "Real evidence". Taitertots Apr 2013 #64

Yeah, kind of like climate change Progressive dog Apr 2013 #86

We live in the most peaceful era in human history, including before guns existed Taitertots Apr 2013 #94

Don't continue to make stuff up Progressive dog Apr 2013 #98

Hilarious. Just claim that anything that disagrees with your ideology is just made up Taitertots Apr 2013 #103

And so if we have more guns we have less gun crime Progressive dog Apr 2013 #119

All the world is now an NRAtalkingPoint (TM). If you don't agree with the data. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #91

Almost cute Progressive dog Apr 2013 #118

Congratulations, you're the most perfect example of confirmation bias I've seen. Donald Ian Rankin Apr 2013 #114

For more stats & graphs Vol.18 No.1 Skeptic magazine www.skeptic.com olddots Apr 2013 #18

If there was NO guns, the murder rate in the USA would be lower. No doubt. Guns..... Logical Apr 2013 #20

Well, that's not what those data suggest Recursion Apr 2013 #21

So you really think if there was no guns just as many murders would be carried out with knifes, etc? Logical Apr 2013 #27

Again, that's what those data show. Gun deaths would go way, way down, but not homicides. Recursion Apr 2013 #29

We live in the most peaceful era in all of human history Taitertots Apr 2013 #33

Homicide in North America since 1700 Recursion Apr 2013 #38

Oh lordy! Is today gun propaganda day? DanTex Apr 2013 #22

No, it doesn't. Recursion Apr 2013 #23

Yes, it does. Do you ever wonder why the peer reviewed research comes to the opposite conclusion DanTex Apr 2013 #26

Look at the ****ing data points. This isn't a difficult question Recursion Apr 2013 #28

You're an engineer? Really? DanTex Apr 2013 #43

No, we don't Recursion Apr 2013 #53

Umm, yes, we do. DanTex Apr 2013 #58

I'm doing the G-8 and the G-20 right now (I've done them before, too) I'll post in a minute Recursion Apr 2013 #60

Brazil ranks #85 in the human development index. DanTex Apr 2013 #66

Another good group is OECD. The problem with G-20 is it includes places like China and Russia, DanTex Apr 2013 #68

Here's G-8 (positive correlation) and G-20 (negative correlation) Recursion Apr 2013 #71

Fot the top 30 in human development index, I was able to find data for 27 countries. DanTex Apr 2013 #81

So we do worse than largely homogeneous social Democracies Recursion Apr 2013 #83

So there's a statistically significant positive correlation between gun ownership and homicide rates DanTex Apr 2013 #84

Even you didn't find a significant correlation Recursion Apr 2013 #85

Umm, yes I did. Unless my stats software is broken, or I entered the data wrong (a possibility), DanTex Apr 2013 #88

We don't know what the rate would be with significantly fewer guns today. Hoyt Apr 2013 #42

It's the same countries as Berezow, which I have seen *you* post Recursion Apr 2013 #50

HA HA HA HA HA! Nice try with this bullshit from a known conservative Uzair Apr 2013 #30

That's why he doesn't draw a conclusion Recursion Apr 2013 #32

Check out the "conservative" findings in post #69. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #99

Garbage in garbage out XRubicon Apr 2013 #31

Who cares that the "homicide by firearm" rate goes down if the "homicide by any means" rate doesn't? Recursion Apr 2013 #34

I care. XRubicon Apr 2013 #41

He says he excluded the same countries for the same reasons. I suppose he could be lying Recursion Apr 2013 #45

I count 25 pts on my plot and about 50 on yours XRubicon Apr 2013 #55

Fine, I'll run the regression for the G-20 if you want. Give me a minute. Recursion Apr 2013 #57

I did G-8 and G-20 in Post 71 Recursion Apr 2013 #72

Because there is no statistically significant effect of guns on non-gun homicide. DanTex Apr 2013 #46

Interesting data. Wish they could isolate crime rates amongst gun owners only. geckosfeet Apr 2013 #37

Even that's possibly confounded. Does owning a gun make you more likely to be killed... Recursion Apr 2013 #48

Don't know. But this method of commingling crime rates geckosfeet Apr 2013 #92

Would the Newtown massacre have happened without an assault rifle? No. El Fuego Apr 2013 #39

Why not? VA Tech had more deaths without an assault weapon Recursion Apr 2013 #40

Seriously??! You're going to split hairs between guns with clips and assault rifles? El Fuego Apr 2013 #80

Ummm... yes. That's not "splitting hairs". Cho used handguns. Ordinary handguns Recursion Apr 2013 #82

Wait ... Am I on Candid Camera? El Fuego Apr 2013 #96

The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #100

Do you think I said something funny? (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #115

The VT murderer used a pistol. With standard mags. He killed more people. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #95

Ah, the "people on the left." You're expressing aggravation with those "people on the left." El Fuego Apr 2013 #102

No "aggravation," just a little dismay. But you may not be on the left yourself, so... Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #105

LOL. Oh, I get it. The guy who wrote this is a right-winger who wrote a book about DanTex Apr 2013 #44

Right, because data points care about ideology Recursion Apr 2013 #47

Right, because a person with an agenda can't tweak a regression to get the result they want. DanTex Apr 2013 #52

No, you really can't "tweak" a linear regression. It just can't be done. Recursion Apr 2013 #56

You can if you get to pick which countries you include and which you don't. DanTex Apr 2013 #61

So, yes, Hartsfield and Bezerow can both have done that. Like I said I'm running it for G-8 and G-20 Recursion Apr 2013 #63

obscuring the issue sigmasix Apr 2013 #106

FYI study written by RW "microbiologist" Progressive dog Apr 2013 #51

It's not a "study". It's a linear regression. Recursion Apr 2013 #54

And neither was the Laffer curve Progressive dog Apr 2013 #59

The Laffer curve wasn't empirical or statistical Recursion Apr 2013 #62

It's hell on the people getting shot rate, though. DirkGently Apr 2013 #65

I have a hard time believing that the "success" rate for other weapons would be as high as guns. n-t Logical Apr 2013 #67

More people are killed with bare hands in the US than rifles Recursion Apr 2013 #73

LOL, machine guns also, who cares. A handgun is a gun. I do not think as many murders would happen.. Logical Apr 2013 #75

I guess it depends on whether the G-8 or the G-20 represents us better? Recursion Apr 2013 #78

See also the National Academy of Sciences Report Viking12 Apr 2013 #69

The increase in suicides when firearms are available is, however, basically undeniable Recursion Apr 2013 #74

Yes, the linked report ackonowledges such an association Viking12 Apr 2013 #90

Gibberish. NRA: giving math a bad name since 1950. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #70

We're *entirely* an outlier, in both directions Recursion Apr 2013 #76

The negative effect of the guns is partially mitigated by our standard of living. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2013 #112

Note #69. More NRAtalkingPoints(marcus registrada)? Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #97

It definitely increases the accidental-deaths-with-guns rate. pnwmom Apr 2013 #77

Definitely. The increase in suicides is pretty much indisputable too Recursion Apr 2013 #79

LOL, people here react on emotion, this funny math thing will not persuade them pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #89

Well, so much for the hallowed position of math/science in some "progressive" circles. Eleanors38 Apr 2013 #101

Yeah right. moondust Apr 2013 #93

Message auto-removed Name removed Apr 2013 #104

No. It's a data plot. Nothing here is a "study" (nt) Recursion Apr 2013 #116

How did he assign a number to privately owned guns in the US? ashling Apr 2013 #107

A Harvard study disagrees. former9thward Apr 2013 #110

How does it disagree? pediatricmedic Apr 2013 #113

LOL. You guys crack me up with your pseudoscience. That's not a "Harvard study". DanTex Apr 2013 #121

Still waiting to hear a legal scholar who agrees with your "collective rights" theory. former9thward Apr 2013 #122

So are you going to try to defend your pseudoscientific study? DanTex Apr 2013 #124

I link to things in my posts. former9thward Apr 2013 #125

Is that a "yes"? So you're actually standing by that study? DanTex Apr 2013 #126

Peer reviewed? Nope. GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #117

This message was self-deleted by its author Ond Apr 2013 #120

You should look at the number of households that have guns Ond Apr 2013 #123

Welcome to DU my friend! hrmjustin Apr 2013 #127