|
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. |
On February 20 2012 15:16 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Your missing the entire point of his statement.
Look I understand the statement entirely. He basically says, look at these numbers: there's no correlation between the number of guns and the number of homicide by firearms. I don't know whether it's true or not, it might be - and there certainly is no perfect correlation at all. But either way, we won't know by comparing different countries because people are different.
In other words, he may be completely right, but I'm saying that the way he uses the stats is completely wrong and bad. When he talks about "symmetry", he's talking about how the graphs don't "match" - and because of the way the graphs are organized, it's obvious that they don't match and they shouldn't.
I'm not denying the statement although I disagree, I'm saying the means he used to get to that statement are erroneous. And yes I latched onto that but it really caught my eye. I'm doing political science, and sadly my highest grade is in stats (it's actually really sad). It's like in maths, having the right answer is only a fraction of the points - that guy may be wrong, he may be right - but if he is, it's not because he processed the data correctly.
|
On February 20 2012 15:10 ClanRH.TV wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 15:04 Djzapz wrote: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 -_- 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).
Actually you're wrong, that entire article is extremely deceitful. I'll break it down to the most simple of levels for you.
"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?
Good question. And I don’t have an answer."
This is the most telling piece of the entire article. This author took 2 graphs, 1 from the source "small arms survey" and the second from the "UNODC Global Study on Homicide". These graphs are stating 2 different things (which is what djzapz was talking about.) but if you want to argue that the graphs are fine it doesn't matter. What matters is the guy questions why the countries listed in 2 different graphs from different sources, who were not specifically creating the graphs to compare the two. It's obvious that 2 random graphs plucked are not designed to be in relation with eachother. Yet, he still questions this. This is because of one of two reasons
REASON ONE: The author of that article actually doesn't understand that the graphs are not made to be directly compared in the first place. He thinks he can just throw them together and pay attention to how they were originally setup rather than comparing them both on rate. If he did he would remove the the listings of the countries that are not found in both graphs as well as having the graph's bars be representative of the rate for both. (To sum this up the author doesn't actually understand the information hes trying to use to prove his point.)
REASON TWO: He understands that these graphs as presented are misleading and is using them anyways because at first glance they support his own view. Which if this is the case means hes purposely being deceptive.
I don't know which he is but I certainly hope its the first reason. Either way the article is only worth the time it takes to read it as an exercise in dissecting misleading information.
|
On February 20 2012 03:25 MerdaPura wrote:Owning a gun gives you the option of slef defense, but IMO martial arts do that job pretty well. And also, the worst part about having a gun, is that you may want to use it. And from there on countless things may happen, good or bad, impossible to know. Finishing: Learn kung-fu 
Unless you're Chuck Norris, there is always someone bigger, badder than you are. Don't buy into the 'martial arts' will always save you. I've practiced various martial arts for over 25 years. I'm pretty badass in the general scheme of things. I still lose fights all the time.
Everyone is entitled to their opinions, however, when your opinion begins to constrict my liberties we have a problem.
Hypothetically, if I was of the opinion that a certain 'class' of people were sub-human then we could treat them like slaves and enough people believed as I did today, would slavery be 'ok'? Of course not. The same wall is in place in the United States regarding gun rights.
|
The graphs are bad, that's true.
But your not looking at the article he posted.
From the article:
Switzerland has approximately 45.7 guns per 100 people (that’s the fourth highest in the world).
Now, what is Switzerland’s gun-related homicide rate? Curiously, that information is omitted from the BBC graph.
I did some research. And while I couldn’t find a current figure for Switzerland’s gun related homicide rate, I did find that the country’s overall intentional homicide rate is .66 per 100,000 people.
That figure is lower than Italy (.7 per 100,000), Macedonia (1.2 per 100,000), and Albania’s (1.8 per 100,000) gun-related homicide rate.
And all of those countries have fewer guns per 100 people: Italy (11.9), Macedonia (7.63), and Albania (16.21).
From his TLDR:
More guns (fewer gun control laws) does not equate to more crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this fact where they have a higher average rate of gun ownership than Italy, Albania and Macedonia, yet still have a lower homicide AND gun related homicide rate.
His graphs are bad, but his point is made aside from the graphs.
|
Yes but alongside them. It's kind of a big mistake to have there. And it's misleading.
|
Thank you ControlMonkey. While the information in the graphs may, for some, not be presented as clearly as they would like it to be, it does support the point. The figures fit in his point just fine. The 1st one presents the weapon (gun) homicide rates for a few European countries and the second one presents the Gun Rate for many of the same countries. The point the author is making (which your still missing) is that the first figure intentionally excluded Switzerland from it because its Gun Homicide Rate (1st graph) vs Gun Rate (2nd graph) does not fit the pattern that increased gun rates lead to increased gun homicide rates.
|
On February 20 2012 15:37 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Thank you ControlMonkey. While the information in the graphs may, for some, not be presented as clearly as they would like it to be, it does support the point.
No, the graphs are incompatible. The "rate" part of the first graph (not graphed) is compatible with the second graph, but it's impossible to compare them visually. Also, the "rate" part of the first graph is only available for the countries which have made it on the first graph - for reasons that were not "per capita".
The point made by the article is or may be agreeable, and the graphs is only a support if you're willing to use deceit to support a position which may be legit.
|
On February 20 2012 15:35 ControlMonkey wrote:
The graphs are bad, that's true.
But your not looking at the article he posted.
From the article:
Switzerland has approximately 45.7 guns per 100 people (that’s the fourth highest in the world).
Now, what is Switzerland’s gun-related homicide rate? Curiously, that information is omitted from the BBC graph.
I did some research. And while I couldn’t find a current figure for Switzerland’s gun related homicide rate, I did find that the country’s overall intentional homicide rate is .66 per 100,000 people.
That figure is lower than Italy (.7 per 100,000), Macedonia (1.2 per 100,000), and Albania’s (1.8 per 100,000) gun-related homicide rate.
And all of those countries have fewer guns per 100 people: Italy (11.9), Macedonia (7.63), and Albania (16.21).
From his TLDR:
More guns (fewer gun control laws) does not equate to more crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this fact where they have a higher average rate of gun ownership than Italy, Albania and Macedonia, yet still have a lower homicide AND gun related homicide rate.
His graphs are bad, but his point is made aside from the graphs.
"Hey guys, I found this other statistic from the bbc graph (that I previously don't mention at all) that supports my conclusion. Don't worry I won't actually bother citing where I got this information but accept it. This is the internet afterall."
|
The discussion is getting derailed by some graph. The graph is small in scale and irrelevant to the bigger picture about gun control and crime. See my previous posts if you have anything to discuss regarding this.
I sort of expected the posts would be ignored. After all, if you present irrefutable evidence against someone's claim, those people tend to ignore it altogether.
|
On February 20 2012 15:41 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 15:37 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Thank you ControlMonkey. While the information in the graphs may, for some, not be presented as clearly as they would like it to be, it does support the point. No, the graphs are incompatible. The "rate" part of the first graph (not graphed) is compatible with the second graph, but it's impossible to compare them visually. Also, the "rate" part of the first graph is only available for the countries which have made it on the first graph - for reasons that were not "per capita".
He states the homicide rate in the 1st figure. The homicide rate appears in the figure in a column to the right of the bars. He is comparing the rates that are displayed in the first figure to the rates that are presented in the second figure.
the "rate" part of the first graph (not graphed) is compatible with the second graph, but it's impossible to compare them visually. Also, the "rate" part of the first graph is only available for the countries which have made it on the first graph - for reasons that were not "per capita".
Haha. Apparently you have to be able to compare them visually to be able to draw a valid conclusion in statistics! I thought statistical testing did that without pictures? My bad man.
Final Edit: I need to point this out to you: He is not comparing the physical symmetries of the graphs. He is strictly referring to the fact that the countries included in the first figure (yes the rates are part of the figure) are not included in the second figure. He's not measuring anything or looking at the little yellow bars....hes not comparing the rates presented in the first graph even...hes stating that they are not symmetrical in terms of countries included in each.
Edit: I obviously mean the presentation of simple graphs to derail the thread. Apparently he can't justify that because the rates themselves aren't actually presented as the little yellow bars, that it doesn't make it's point none the less.
Regardless, the point of arguing that is irrelevant because the point I meant to present was in support of free gun possession laws (or lack thereof). I apologize to the OP for arguing this point. I'll refrain from arguing with unintelligent individuals.
|
On February 20 2012 15:45 ClanRH.TV wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 15:41 Djzapz wrote:On February 20 2012 15:37 ClanRH.TV wrote:
Thank you ControlMonkey. While the information in the graphs may, for some, not be presented as clearly as they would like it to be, it does support the point. No, the graphs are incompatible. The "rate" part of the first graph (not graphed) is compatible with the second graph, but it's impossible to compare them visually. Also, the "rate" part of the first graph is only available for the countries which have made it on the first graph - for reasons that were not "per capita". HE STATES THE HOMICIDE RATE IN THE FIGURE. THE HOMICIDE RATE APPEARS IN THE FIGURE IN A COLUMN TO THE RIGHT OF THE BARS. HE IS COMPARING THE RATES THAT APPEAR IN THE FIRST FIGURE He states the homicide rate in the 1st figure. The homicide rate appears in the figure in a column to the right of the bars. He is comparing the rates that are displayed in the first figure to the rates that are presented in the second figure.
He's comparing the graphs. The graphical part of it. Talking about symmetry between the graphs. The graphs are not put together to match. The numbers are partially comparable because of the numbers next to the graph, but in that case you can't compare the symmetry of the graphs.
Edit: And yes he is wrongly comparing the physical symmetry of the graphs, no matter how you bend and twist the words to make sense of it.
|
On February 20 2012 15:35 ControlMonkey wrote:
The graphs are bad, that's true.
But your not looking at the article he posted.
From the article:
Switzerland has approximately 45.7 guns per 100 people (that’s the fourth highest in the world).
Now, what is Switzerland’s gun-related homicide rate? Curiously, that information is omitted from the BBC graph.
I did some research. And while I couldn’t find a current figure for Switzerland’s gun related homicide rate, I did find that the country’s overall intentional homicide rate is .66 per 100,000 people.
That figure is lower than Italy (.7 per 100,000), Macedonia (1.2 per 100,000), and Albania’s (1.8 per 100,000) gun-related homicide rate.
And all of those countries have fewer guns per 100 people: Italy (11.9), Macedonia (7.63), and Albania (16.21).
From his TLDR:
More guns (fewer gun control laws) does not equate to more crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this fact where they have a higher average rate of gun ownership than Italy, Albania and Macedonia, yet still have a lower homicide AND gun related homicide rate.
His graphs are bad, but his point is made aside from the graphs.
Actually his point is the worst i have ever seen. Wtf comparing switzerland to albania, macedonia and italy? Albania is one of the biggest drug exporters in europe and they have a long and violent history. Macedonia is the same. Actually the whole balkan is more comparable to africa than western europe. Murders happen predominantly in the south of italy. Guess why?
|
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I'm fine with guns, as long as you are required to take an IQ test before you're allowed to buy it. I'm excluding cops, military, etc.
|
We need to ban guns. Period.
From the police. from anyone.
Total Gun Ban!
|
Never own a wife and a gun at the same time.
|
On February 20 2012 15:43 omnic wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2012 15:35 ControlMonkey wrote:
The graphs are bad, that's true.
But your not looking at the article he posted.
From the article:
Switzerland has approximately 45.7 guns per 100 people (that’s the fourth highest in the world).
Now, what is Switzerland’s gun-related homicide rate? Curiously, that information is omitted from the BBC graph.
I did some research. And while I couldn’t find a current figure for Switzerland’s gun related homicide rate, I did find that the country’s overall intentional homicide rate is .66 per 100,000 people.
That figure is lower than Italy (.7 per 100,000), Macedonia (1.2 per 100,000), and Albania’s (1.8 per 100,000) gun-related homicide rate.
And all of those countries have fewer guns per 100 people: Italy (11.9), Macedonia (7.63), and Albania (16.21).
From his TLDR:
More guns (fewer gun control laws) does not equate to more crime. Switzerland is a prime example of this fact where they have a higher average rate of gun ownership than Italy, Albania and Macedonia, yet still have a lower homicide AND gun related homicide rate.
His graphs are bad, but his point is made aside from the graphs. "Hey guys, I found this other statistic from the bbc graph (that I previously don't mention at all) that supports my conclusion. Don't worry I won't actually bother citing where I got this information but accept it. This is the internet afterall."
So I went back and read the article in a bit more detail.
Arguing about the graphs is pointless when the real problem with the article is:
1. It comes from "Guns.com". Hardly a neutral source.
2. Quotes a BBC article who's primary point is to show the legislative reaction to gun massacres, and refutes an argument which the article does not make, that guns ownership causes violence.
3. Quotes statistics on homicide rates in Switzerland and other countries with no sources.
The article even states that the graphs are bad. The comment about lack of symmetry is the author saying that the graphs shouldn't be compared to each other:
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?
Good question. And I don’t have an answer.
But what I can do is supply information that has been omitted to help paint a clearer picture.
I never agreed with that article or the arguments it made. I was just saying that arguing about the graphs is pointless when the argument the article makes is made outside of the graphs.
Having said that, i do hate misleading graphs.
|
Personally I believe no. The only reason I can see somebody needing a gun is if they live in some place with dangerous animals, such as bears and shit like that, just for self-defense. Other than that, I see no reason why a person needs a gun.
|
No, screw the ordinary law abiding citizen. Let them be defenseless against a criminal who breaks into your house, or hell, be passive if you see a couple get beaten by a gang of a few people.
It's ok. Law abiding citizen get no guns, criminals get tons of guns ( don't give me that no guns policy = no more guns for criminals because they can't get them, you guys live in a country with a huge military force and police force, so you can get them even if they would be illegal for common people ). LACK OF REASON IN THIS THREAD FAILS TO IMPRESS ME.
And by the way, the only time when a gun is bad, is when you have a moron parent that owns a gun and his kid accidently shoots himself. You want to kill your wife because she cheated with your neighboor ? Who needs a gun when you have 30+ knifes in your house ?
Guns will not 100% protect you against a criminal if you are assaulted, indeed, but not having a gun reduces your chances to 0%( unless you have extensive training for a lot of years in some martial arts discipline ).
I support gun ownership 100% in a world where thugs have guns and the government has guns. I support the discarding of ALL weapons across the world. The only threat to us is us or a big freakin asteroid. If aliens come, for sure every weapon that we would have would be useless against "such a force". So again...I don't see any reason for weapons in this world, where people realized that it's not ok to be cunts with each other( killing, raping, abusing, beating, etcetc )
|
You anti-gun people do realize that self defense isn't the only reason to own a firearm, right?
Seriously, you're getting your panties in a bunch because.... graphs? Are you kidding?
|
On February 20 2012 03:06 Mohdoo wrote:When I compare the murder rate in the US to that of other developed countries, I wish we had less guns. Its really staggering just how much more murder occurs here compared to Japan or Korea 
Do you think guns are the cause of this, or the fact that those societies revolve around respect and obedience while America's revolves around pretty much the opposite?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
