EPThttp://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=23#441
If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=313472¤tpage=23#441 | ||
|
Dbars
United States273 Posts
| ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
| ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On February 20 2012 12:50 Millitron wrote: The rate IS presented. Its on the right. See where it says 0.7 for Italy? Listen to me right now. Similar graphs could have been shown to support MY position on any topic at all and I'd still call it out for being disingenuous. A graph is a visual representation of a statistic. When you compare two graphs, the units of comparison used in the graph should be the same. You present graphs to people so that they can compare in some ways the position of a country - otherwise you don't bother with a visual presentation. If any people here have been to university like I have, they'd see that the graphs can easily be deceptive - and this is not a pet peeve or me being picky, this is actually something any academics would frown upon - a really sad way to deceive those who may not be able to make sense of statistics. WHAT HE SAID Okay, right away one will notice the lack of symmetry between the two graphs. Not all the countries listed on the one graph are listed on the other. Why is that? Of COURSE there is NO SYMMETRY, Jesus Christ, the first one is sorted by absolute numbers and the second one is sorted by rates. For the love of God, I'm not usually like this but I'm up here looking down and I can't believe that that guy DARED insulting me after citing such a ridiculous, biased article. ![[image loading]](http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d113/DJZapZ/DEARGOD.jpg) Edit: I'm sorry for editing again but now I'm just going crazy, like I understand that there are two sides to an argument and both sides do bring up valid arguments, but am I wrong here? Like did something just break in my brain? Because it feels to me like this is statistics like these are easy to understand and available to the slowest of 12 year olds. Why do I need to explain this to grown men? Why are people citing a "guns.com" article with such a gross mistake? Someone PM me with love because this is out of this world unbelievable -_- | ||
|
Omnidroid
New Zealand214 Posts
US on the otherhand is different, since guns are already so prolific in society, you just cant afford to NOT have a gun. Since you'll be a step behind everyone else. I don't see it changing anytime soon, maybe if somehow all the guns magically disappeared. Kinda like one of the things you have to accept, it wont change anytime soon. | ||
|
ControlMonkey
Australia3109 Posts
You want to own a gun to protect yourself? You think gun ownership reduces crime? Move to a country/state with lax gun control laws. You hate guns, and wish to live in a society with as few guns a possible? Then move to a country/state with tighter gun control laws. Problem solved. As an Australian the idea that people have guns to feel safe is alien to me. But if that's what you want, then I'm not going to stop you from moving to a place which has light gun control laws. | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
Democracy sucks! | ||
|
fofa2000
Canada548 Posts
 . The Country with the most gun, the US, has also a far higher murder rate than in any other industrialized country. Does this mean there is a clear connection between guns and murder rate? Not necessarily. In Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine he explores this issue quite a bit. There are also many guns in Canada, but much less murder....so what then? I may have an explanation and you can take it the way you like. I think that when wealth is poorly distributed in a country it creates surges of violence. Under the right circumstances, say guns are easily accessible, say minorities feel discriminated... Say poor people are stigmatized, described as lazy, say social services are almost non-existent...Say people feel paranoid (a recurring theme in M.Moores documentaries) Such environnement is probably not very good for friendly neighborhood relations and peaceful lives. I live in Canada, and I wouldn't ever feel the need to own a gun. why is that? Simply because I feel safe. I'm totally happy to give any large portions of my income if it means everyone has access to free healthcare. After all, our goal as a society is to find the perfect balance between liberalism and equality, and I'm afraid the US has given up too much of one for the illusion of the other. Just like the USSR did in their time, but the other way around! | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 20 2012 13:17 ControlMonkey wrote: Here's a novel idea: You want to own a gun to protect yourself? You think gun ownership reduces crime? Move to a country/state with lax gun control laws. You hate guns, and wish to live in a society with as few guns a possible? Then move to a country/state with tighter gun control laws. Problem solved. As an Australian the idea that people have guns to feel safe is alien to me. But if that's what you want, then I'm not going to stop you from moving to a place which has light gun control laws. Excellent post. Exactly how I feel. I'm cool with people not wanting guns, as long as they're cool that I do want guns. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
One of the most liberal states in the USA (Vermont) also has the fewest gun laws. Off hand I think they basically have 3. 1) You need to be 16 to buy a gun on your own. (15 or under with your parent's permission) 2) Don't carry a gun on a school bus. 3) Don't carry a gun into a school. And that's it..aside from your basic laws against buying a gun for a felon (straw purchase), negligent discharge, firing in a occupied dwelling (ect). Everything else, you are allowed to do. Those are the only 3 restrictions. There is no concealed carry permit... because nobody needs one. If some 16 year old prom queen wants to walk around town like Laura Croft with two HK USP's on her, she could. "Gun violence" in america is more of a socio/economic/culture problem than a "gun" problem. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On February 20 2012 13:28 Millitron wrote: Excellent post. Exactly how I feel. I'm cool with people not wanting guns, as long as they're cool that I do want guns. I didn't say that in our PM but there are plenty of problems in society. Gun control is not one I feel strongly about, but I still feel like it's important. People can't move away from their problems - there are going to be more issues there, abortion, gay rights, etc. | ||
|
Millitron
United States2611 Posts
On February 20 2012 13:46 Djzapz wrote: I didn't say that in our PM but there are plenty of problems in society. Gun control is not one I feel strongly about, but I still feel like it's important. People can't move away from their problems - there are going to be more issues there, abortion, gay rights, etc. I can see that. I guess people will just have to weigh their priorities and go to the country that fulfills as many of them as possible. | ||
|
Nagano
United States1157 Posts
When dealing with things like religion, abortion, contraception, marijuana, and gun control--all very controversial topics by themselves--I would hope people would look at all sides of the equation, especially the scientific studies surrounding the topic, before going out and making their opinion known. If most citizens did this, our political climate would be so much better. With gun control, you have to look at the facts surrounding both the number of guns and whether or not gun control policies are effective. To be clear, they are not. And it is not guns themselves or the policies that are the problem. It is socioeconomic and cultural. While I own a firearm myself, I took the time to educate myself on the facts of the issue as to not seem biased in my opinion. I suggest everyone here do the same because there is too much spite and too much namecalling, too much misinformation and too much anecdote. Gun Facts, page 19, independent sources | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
His rambles commenting on my statements: On February 20 2012 12:44 Djzapz wrote: I added the last paragraph and modified it multiple time because it was incoherent. Sorry. You can compare different countries but you can't pretend to establish a causality link like you did, or hinted at. Like I said, there's plenty of research - plenty of conflicting results. LOL. First graph presented TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMICIDES BY FIREARM. (It's written above the graph). In 2006, Italy had about 415 homicides by firearm. NOT 415 per 100,000. ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1b1ke.jpg) Dudebro. There WEREN'T 250,000 FIREARM HOMICIDES in Italy in 2006. The rate by 100k people is on the right, and not represented on the graph, which presents the absolute number. Dear God 250,000-firearm-homicides-in-italy-Man, the irony. Nice disinformation. I like that you mocked me because you thought I didn't understand the information that you presented, when you clearly don't get it at ALL. In regards to: 2.) I never established causality....I presented the facts and stated my interpretation....That = you misinterpreting. 3.) Don't bother to present any of it. Just say it and its true man. You said: LOL. First graph presented TOTAL NUMBER OF HOMICIDES BY FIREARM. (It's written above the graph). In 2006, Italy had about 415 homicides by firearm. NOT 415 per 100,000. If you look at the part of the figure all the way to the right where it says "Rate," that is where the rate is presented. In other words, Rate for Italy= .7 per 100k. Again, that = you misinterpreting what I said. Great job You have the reading comprehension of a 4 year old. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On February 20 2012 14:42 ClanRH.TV wrote: If you look at the part of the figure all the way to the right where it says "Rate," that is where the rate is presented. In other words, Rate for Italy= .7 per 100k. Again, that = you misinterpreting what I said. Great job You have the reading comprehension of a 4 year old. The first graph is made to present the highest absolute numbers. The highest "per capita" figures will therefore be left out. Also, the data would naturally not be presented "in the right order" to match the second graph. What I'm saying is, even if there was a 100% PERFECT correlation between the number of guns and the number of firearm homicides, it would not show there. Obviously there's no symmetry - and the author of that paper is incompetent and should never talk about statistics - nor should you. Edit: Again (this is very simple), you can't compare absolute numbers (first graph) to "per capita" numbers (second graph). And yes the first graph presents the "per capita" version of the homicide on the side, but it's *NOT* sorted from highest to lowest, and cannot be compared to the second graph. This is very very elementary. The author of the paper tries to compare the appearance of the graphs, but you can't do that. | ||
|
hmunkey
United Kingdom1973 Posts
Kinda pathetic tbh... | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
On February 20 2012 15:02 hmunkey wrote: Wow, some of you guys don't know how to read graphs and you're old enough to operate a computer alone. Kinda pathetic tbh... Seriously. I assume you mean him because I assume you know how to read graphs -_- | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
On February 20 2012 15:04 Djzapz wrote: Seriously. I assume you mean him because I assume you know how to read graphs -_- Lol. Your problem is far greater than not knowing how to read graphs. The problem you have is reading comprehension in general. You don't even know what the author meant when he said the graphs were "asymmetric." I can't teach you how to interpret relatively clear and basic english. I'd prefer to leave it to the rest of the community and hopefully they can tell you why your criticism of his article is completely flawed (let alone a single graph). | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
http://www.guns.com/gun-homicides-in-europe-an-overview.html You can't compare the two because the first one sorts data in absolutes and the other one sorts data per capita. Just, someone who understands stats like I do, please. I feel like I'm getting trolled. | ||
|
ClanRH.TV
United States462 Posts
| ||
| ||
