|
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 09 2013 01:02 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 00:09 LOveRH wrote:On February 08 2013 19:24 starcon wrote:
Moral argument: let's forbid guns so that we can lower crime and save people.
Solution: government passes a law and the problem will be solved.
But we aren't talking about true gun control, removing guns from society, just about centralizing weaponry in the lands of the state. If the police/military laid down their guns then private citizens would be more inclined to do so as well.
Otherwise is to create a double standard. Guns only in the hands of government and police.
To solve the problem of the moral argument laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. Mandatory penalties for using a firearm in a violent crime in 1975 led to: Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 11% in 15 years, South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990, Florida's homicide rate down 33% over a 17 year span, Delaware's homicide rate down 33% in a 19 year span, Montana's homicide rate down 42% from 1976-1992 and New Hampshire's homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992.
One interesting thing to note James Holmes, the Batman shooter, had 7 theatres nearby to choose from. He choose the furthest from his house because it was a gun-free zone. What do you mean by this? That he picked a movie theater because he knew the customers wouldn't have guns to shoot back? That's exactly it. The same logic is used for almost every mass shooting within the United States. I do not know of one that hasn't taken place in a gun-free zone.
So you are saying they havent shot up a gun show yet. Excellent point.
|
On February 09 2013 01:02 Donger wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 00:09 LOveRH wrote:On February 08 2013 19:24 starcon wrote:
Moral argument: let's forbid guns so that we can lower crime and save people.
Solution: government passes a law and the problem will be solved.
But we aren't talking about true gun control, removing guns from society, just about centralizing weaponry in the lands of the state. If the police/military laid down their guns then private citizens would be more inclined to do so as well.
Otherwise is to create a double standard. Guns only in the hands of government and police.
To solve the problem of the moral argument laws aimed at criminal misuse of firearms are proven crime deterrents. Mandatory penalties for using a firearm in a violent crime in 1975 led to: Virginia's murder rate dropped 23% and robbery 11% in 15 years, South Carolina recorded a 24% murder rate decline between 1975 and 1990, Florida's homicide rate down 33% over a 17 year span, Delaware's homicide rate down 33% in a 19 year span, Montana's homicide rate down 42% from 1976-1992 and New Hampshire's homicide rate down 50% 1977-1992.
One interesting thing to note James Holmes, the Batman shooter, had 7 theatres nearby to choose from. He choose the furthest from his house because it was a gun-free zone. What do you mean by this? That he picked a movie theater because he knew the customers wouldn't have guns to shoot back? That's exactly it. The same logic is used for almost every mass shooting within the United States. I do not know of one that hasn't taken place in a gun-free zone.
Why does it matter if a shooter attacks in a 'gun free zone' over the opposite? From my point of view most shootings the shooter is pretty much crazy and a lot of the time shoots himself after. I really don't think a shooter picks gun free zones for that propose. I think you are giving the shooters sanity a lot more credit then it deserves.
|
On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate ![[image loading]](http://sphotos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/6107_10100113177793196_1664301245_n.jpg) Murders using guns ![[image loading]](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/65311000/gif/_65311537_gun_deaths_dev_countries_464.gif) These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis. Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?" Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?" Test: "Wrong" Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?" Test: "Flies do!" Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots." It also works for guns. Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths" Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?" Test: ....... So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something. Example: Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys. Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me? Test: Yo babe, you still love me? Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me. So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer. Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained. The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations. Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor.
Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something.
For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles.
But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest.
My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion.
|
On February 03 2013 08:59 white_horse wrote:
You guys are all missing the point. Nobody cares about your anecdotal stories of chasing off bad guys because you had a gun and were able to save yourself. The people asking for more gun control don't have a problem with your guns. The point is, how are we going to make the laws better and stronger so that the wrong people don't get guns? People who shouldn't be able to get guns were able to in the case of sandy hook or VT - so how can we strengthen the laws so that those kind of people with psychological problems cannot get guns? You have to acknowledge there is something wrong with the ways guns are regulated when people are dying in situations when they never should have.
Part of you is correct. Nobody cares about my--or any other--anecdotal situation. Because it wasn't you. But if it ever is (I am not wishing this on anyone), you will then understand why this may add bias into an argument. I am admittedly bias because I have experience. I was only carrying because of our very relaxed state law which doesn't require any permit for conceal or open carry if you are a resident. And people are after the guns I have. The very firearm I was carrying is not allowed with an assault weapon ban. In fact, the only firearms I have that are not listed in the ban are hunting rifles and a shotgun. Those are not exactly something you can carry around for self defense.
I also find it ironic that the same people who are against things like sanity and/or IQ tests as a prerequisite for voting actually support it for gun control. I support it for neither, but if you cannot trust someone with a firearm, how on earth can you trust them with something as dangerous as a vote?
|
Gun ban advocates, in the USA, keep saying we need to ban handguns but the Supreme Court has already ruled that handguns can't be banned and ownership is protected under the 2nd amendment. The only way to get a handgun ban is to amend the US constitution. A proposal to repeal the 2nd amendment would need to submitted by a super majority of the House and Senate (two-thirds). Then the proposal would require the ratification by three-fourths of the states: 38 states.
This high watermark essentially makes any type of complete ban, gun or rifle, politically impossible. So to keep proposing a complete ban on handguns, in the USA, seems like a non-productive way of stopping the illegal possession and/or use of a firearm. I'd think gun control advocates would be more successful lobbying congress to enact laws that close all gun dealer loop holes, enact mandatory back ground checks on all states, and enacting uniform licensing procedures that require mandatory training on hand gun use and storage.
I used to have a license to own but not carry rifles, I was in a rifle club that participated in competitive shooting, and I have shot many different handguns. I'm honestly not worried about the ordinary citizen carrying a gun - so many own and carry and never do anything stupid or illegal with a gun. Guns don't suddenly cause a sane and non-violent person to suddenly undergo a gun induced blood lust.
I understand the argument that guns make killing and maiming very efficient - why even have something whose only purpose is to put a hole into living beings? Having shot some high caliber rifles I would never ever want to be shot with one or shoot someone else. But the framers of our constitution wanted us to have guns to give the state pause should it decide to follow the path of tyranny. Granted I understand that I would get wrecked if I went up against a tank with nothing but a 30/30, but a guerrilla insurgency wouldn't employ those types of methods.
But before I would even consider taking such drastic action like a government overthrow, I would vigorously engage in the normal political process and press our legislators through peaceful means. It wasn't like our founding fathers intended for revolutions/violence to be the first choice of discourse. For the record I don't believe we are on the path of tyranny - I think the biggest danger to our democracy is the complacency of the average voter.
So what to do with guns? Is it possible to ban guns and thereby prevent shootings - I don't think so. Any illegal object that can be reasonably obtained (reasonably as in "easy to procure or smuggle) will find it's way into the hands of those who seek it. So in essence only the most violent and nefarious in the USA will posses a gun - leaving everyone else at the mercy of any violent individual who has the ability to overwhelm you physically or shoot you.
Currently, what most people don't mention, is that gun related violence has been dropping steadily and overall violence has been dropping consistently despite increased gun ownership: FBI statistics on violent crime.
What is the perfect balance of gun control that would satisfy gun critics and owners? Who knows. But I don't think banning all guns is the solution nor is having lax gun control and tracking. Sadly I feel that this is an argument that will continue ad-infinitum with no satisfactory compromise since each side is so entrenched and unwilling to concede on even the most reasonable solutions.
|
On February 09 2013 00:35 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 11:03 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:45 TheFrankOne wrote:
To put it in logic terms. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition which is obviously what he meant. Posting a wikipedia article that says in strict formal logic implies means something different than in common parlance. is a terrible rebuttal. Nice job ignoring everything else I wrote which explains why the correlation in this case does not imply causation. Your Wiki article still doesn't support your point at all.
Stop being deliberately obtuse. I linked that wiki article to specifically address deathly rat's false assertion that "correlation implies causation". I made my other arguments elsewhere.
On February 09 2013 00:35 TheFrankOne wrote:Secondly, as far as I know the US doesn't have a very high violent crime rate and as far as I can tell you have no sources. We have an outlier murder rate and our other crime rates are hovering around most developed nations, who aren't exactly utopian worlds themselves. Top Ten List ![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/07/02/article-1196941-05900DF7000005DC-677_468x636.jpg) US rate is at 448. Burglary
You're using a biased chart from an ideological source posted in the Daily Mail, a tabloid? Don't be ridiculous.
You need to compare apples to apples. That is, look at the same type of crime, measured according to the same methods. When you do that for something relevant like homicide, you get this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#homicide
|
On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis. Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?" Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?" Test: "Wrong" Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?" Test: "Flies do!" Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots." It also works for guns. Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths" Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?" Test: ....... So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something. Example: Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys. Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me? Test: Yo babe, you still love me? Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me. So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer. Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained. The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations. Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor. Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something. For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles. But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest. My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion.
And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation.
I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation.
|
On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis. Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?" Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?" Test: "Wrong" Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?" Test: "Flies do!" Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots." It also works for guns. Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths" Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?" Test: ....... So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something. Example: Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys. Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me? Test: Yo babe, you still love me? Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me. So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer. Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained. The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations. Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor. Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something. For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles. But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest. My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion. And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation. I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation.
Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence.
Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]"
|
On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis. Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?" Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?" Test: "Wrong" Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?" Test: "Flies do!" Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots." It also works for guns. Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths" Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?" Test: ....... So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something. Example: Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys. Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me? Test: Yo babe, you still love me? Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me. So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer. Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained. The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations. Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor. Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something. For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles. But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest. My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion. And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation. I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation. Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence. Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]"
And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them.
In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership.
|
On February 09 2013 07:31 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis. Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?" Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?" Test: "Wrong" Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?" Test: "Flies do!" Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots." It also works for guns. Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths" Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?" Test: ....... So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something. Example: Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys. Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me? Test: Yo babe, you still love me? Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me. So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer. Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained. The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations. Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor. Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something. For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles. But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest. My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion. And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation. I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation. Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence. Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]" And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them. In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership.
However, high gun ownership in the US correlating to high gun violence in the US is not disproved by the existence of non-gun violence in the US no matter how high--that would be a strawman. The correlation still exists and would need proof to refute it--not simply relative comparisons but actual explanations for why the correlation exists. Stick to the facts--the US has a lot of guns, the US has a lot of gun violence. Saying its on the downturn does not negate it. Saying there are other non-gun violence being committed does not negate it. Those are just strawmen walking away from the data.
Stick to the data.
|
On February 09 2013 06:12 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 00:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 08 2013 11:03 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:45 TheFrankOne wrote:
To put it in logic terms. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition which is obviously what he meant. Posting a wikipedia article that says in strict formal logic implies means something different than in common parlance. is a terrible rebuttal. Nice job ignoring everything else I wrote which explains why the correlation in this case does not imply causation. Your Wiki article still doesn't support your point at all. Stop being deliberately obtuse. I linked that wiki article to specifically address deathly rat's false assertion that "correlation implies causation". I made my other arguments elsewhere. Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 00:35 TheFrankOne wrote:Secondly, as far as I know the US doesn't have a very high violent crime rate and as far as I can tell you have no sources. We have an outlier murder rate and our other crime rates are hovering around most developed nations, who aren't exactly utopian worlds themselves. Top Ten List US rate is at 448. Burglary You're using a biased chart from an ideological source posted in the Daily Mail, a tabloid? Don't be ridiculous. You need to compare apples to apples. That is, look at the same type of crime, measured according to the same methods. When you do that for something relevant like homicide, you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#homicide
So you tell me I'm wrong and post nothing to prove that the US actually has a high violent crime rate? do you know how refuting an argument works? All that article has is the burglary chart I posted which is a property crime but the US is in the middle. On homicides we are way off.
Correlation does imply causation as long as imply is used to mean "suggest", which it was in the post you tried to refute. This is not a formal logic class. He was not saying P implies Q to be a definitive if-then statement, which is obvious by context.
|
On February 09 2013 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 07:31 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis. Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?" Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?" Test: "Wrong" Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?" Test: "Flies do!" Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots." It also works for guns. Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths" Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?" Test: ....... So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something. Example: Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys. Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me? Test: Yo babe, you still love me? Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me. So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer. Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained. The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations. Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor. Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something. For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles. But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest. My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion. And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation. I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation. Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence. Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]" And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them. In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership. However, high gun ownership in the US correlating to high gun violence in the US is not disproved by the existence of non-gun violence in the US no matter how high--that would be a strawman. The correlation still exists and would need proof to refute it--not simply relative comparisons but actual explanations for why the correlation exists. Stick to the facts--the US has a lot of guns, the US has a lot of gun violence. Saying its on the downturn does not negate it. Saying there are other non-gun violence being committed does not negate it. Those are just strawmen walking away from the data. Stick to the data.
Does your reading comprehension suck or are you being deliberately dense?
I didn't argue that gun violence is on the decline, even though it is. My argument is that the United States has very high rates of violent crime in general, which means that guns can't be the cause when there are high rates of crimes that have nothing to do with guns.
Consider all the facts, instead of covering your eyes and ignoring the other factors.
|
On February 09 2013 08:21 TheFrankOne wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 06:12 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 00:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 08 2013 11:03 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:45 TheFrankOne wrote:
To put it in logic terms. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition which is obviously what he meant. Posting a wikipedia article that says in strict formal logic implies means something different than in common parlance. is a terrible rebuttal. Nice job ignoring everything else I wrote which explains why the correlation in this case does not imply causation. Your Wiki article still doesn't support your point at all. Stop being deliberately obtuse. I linked that wiki article to specifically address deathly rat's false assertion that "correlation implies causation". I made my other arguments elsewhere. On February 09 2013 00:35 TheFrankOne wrote:Secondly, as far as I know the US doesn't have a very high violent crime rate and as far as I can tell you have no sources. We have an outlier murder rate and our other crime rates are hovering around most developed nations, who aren't exactly utopian worlds themselves. Top Ten List US rate is at 448. Burglary You're using a biased chart from an ideological source posted in the Daily Mail, a tabloid? Don't be ridiculous. You need to compare apples to apples. That is, look at the same type of crime, measured according to the same methods. When you do that for something relevant like homicide, you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#homicide So you tell me I'm wrong and post nothing to prove that the US actually has a high violent crime rate? do you know how refuting an argument works? All that article has is the burglary chart I posted which is a property crime but the US is in the middle. On homicides we are way off.
The section on homicides is what I'm referring to. You can see another chart here. We have a bizarrely high homicide rate, even when compared to our neighbor Canada which has similar rates of gun ownership.
|
On February 09 2013 08:55 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 08:21 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 09 2013 06:12 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 00:35 TheFrankOne wrote:On February 08 2013 11:03 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:45 TheFrankOne wrote:
To put it in logic terms. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition which is obviously what he meant. Posting a wikipedia article that says in strict formal logic implies means something different than in common parlance. is a terrible rebuttal. Nice job ignoring everything else I wrote which explains why the correlation in this case does not imply causation. Your Wiki article still doesn't support your point at all. Stop being deliberately obtuse. I linked that wiki article to specifically address deathly rat's false assertion that "correlation implies causation". I made my other arguments elsewhere. On February 09 2013 00:35 TheFrankOne wrote:Secondly, as far as I know the US doesn't have a very high violent crime rate and as far as I can tell you have no sources. We have an outlier murder rate and our other crime rates are hovering around most developed nations, who aren't exactly utopian worlds themselves. Top Ten List US rate is at 448. Burglary You're using a biased chart from an ideological source posted in the Daily Mail, a tabloid? Don't be ridiculous. You need to compare apples to apples. That is, look at the same type of crime, measured according to the same methods. When you do that for something relevant like homicide, you get this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States#homicide So you tell me I'm wrong and post nothing to prove that the US actually has a high violent crime rate? do you know how refuting an argument works? All that article has is the burglary chart I posted which is a property crime but the US is in the middle. On homicides we are way off. The section on homicides is what I'm referring to. You can see another chart here. We have a bizarrely high homicide rate, even when compared to our neighbor Canada which has similar rates of gun ownership.
Only if you consider a little more than 1/3 a similar rate.
|
On February 09 2013 08:39 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 07:31 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:On February 01 2013 13:44 deathly rat wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On February 01 2013 13:37 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 01 2013 13:28 deathly rat wrote:Murder rate Murders using guns These figures don't even account for people who accidentally kill or injure other people with their guns. The stats show that guns mean more deaths and more murders. This is why the burden of proof is on YOU to show that the right to own guns outweighs all those who have been killed rights to live. "Correlation does not imply causation. The burden is on YOU to prove that guns mean more murders." + Show Spoiler +In reality, the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. The problems with the US stem from income inequality, racial heterogeneity, the War on Drugs, demographic problems like fatherlessness, a poor education system, and the list goes on. The availability of guns only means that criminals kill with guns instead of other means, and even if you removed every firearm the violent crime rate would still be ridiculously high compared to Europe.
Actually relevant correlation strongly implies causation, it just doesn't prove causation, and I can't really see the situation in which it could be scientifically proven to someone who is willing to look for any unreasonable reason not to agree. In this case the stats are the best kind of proof you can get. Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis. Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?" Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?" Test: "Wrong" Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?" Test: "Flies do!" Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots." It also works for guns. Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths" Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?" Test: ....... So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something. Example: Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys. Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me? Test: Yo babe, you still love me? Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me. So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer. Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained. The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations. Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor. Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something. For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles. But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest. My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion. And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation. I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation. Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence. Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]" And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them. In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership. However, high gun ownership in the US correlating to high gun violence in the US is not disproved by the existence of non-gun violence in the US no matter how high--that would be a strawman. The correlation still exists and would need proof to refute it--not simply relative comparisons but actual explanations for why the correlation exists. Stick to the facts--the US has a lot of guns, the US has a lot of gun violence. Saying its on the downturn does not negate it. Saying there are other non-gun violence being committed does not negate it. Those are just strawmen walking away from the data. Stick to the data. Does your reading comprehension suck or are you being deliberately dense? I didn't argue that gun violence is on the decline, even though it is. My argument is that the United States has very high rates of violent crime in general, which means that guns can't be the cause when there are high rates of crimes that have nothing to do with guns. Consider all the facts, instead of covering your eyes and ignoring the other factors.
The existence of high non-gun violence does not dismiss the existence of high gun violence. That is a strawman.
For example, if I brought a dozen donuts to work, and when I get there everyone had brought a dozen bagels with them--that does not mean that I no longer brought a dozen donuts to work no matter how high the total number of ring shaped food stuffs existed. The donuts I bring (much like the existence of high gun violence) does not hinge on whether or not there exists non donut (non-gun violent crimes) food stuffs.
To bring up things outside the data being discussed is a strawman that this thread should stop perpetuating.
Is there more guns than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Is there more gun violence than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Due to this correlation people feel that there is a possible causal relationship between the two statistics.
Saying that there are other variables that you care about more than the variables initially presented is a strawman.
|
On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 08:39 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 07:31 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 07 2013 12:20 sunprince wrote:[quote] Wrong. Correlation does not imply causation. And I already explained why this particular correlation does not imply causation: the United States has a very high non-gun violent crime rate as well. Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis. Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?" Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?" Test: "Wrong" Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?" Test: "Flies do!" Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots." It also works for guns. Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths" Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?" Test: ....... So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something. Example: Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys. Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me? Test: Yo babe, you still love me? Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me. So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer. Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained. The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations. Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor. Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something. For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles. But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest. My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion. And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation. I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation. Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence. Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]" And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them. In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership. However, high gun ownership in the US correlating to high gun violence in the US is not disproved by the existence of non-gun violence in the US no matter how high--that would be a strawman. The correlation still exists and would need proof to refute it--not simply relative comparisons but actual explanations for why the correlation exists. Stick to the facts--the US has a lot of guns, the US has a lot of gun violence. Saying its on the downturn does not negate it. Saying there are other non-gun violence being committed does not negate it. Those are just strawmen walking away from the data. Stick to the data. Does your reading comprehension suck or are you being deliberately dense? I didn't argue that gun violence is on the decline, even though it is. My argument is that the United States has very high rates of violent crime in general, which means that guns can't be the cause when there are high rates of crimes that have nothing to do with guns. Consider all the facts, instead of covering your eyes and ignoring the other factors. The existence of high non-gun violence does not dismiss the existence of high gun violence. That is a strawman.
It does not dismiss it, but it implies that other factors are at work. Also, you don't seem to understand what a strawman is.
To use your own argument, the existence of high gun violence is correlated with high non-gun violence. So wouldn't you say this implies that the high amount of non-gun violence is the cause?
On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Is there more guns than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Is there more gun violence than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Due to this correlation people feel that there is a possible causal relationship between the two statistics.
And I've explained why this causal relationship doesn't exist because of a confounding factor.
On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Saying that there are other variables that you care about more than the variables initially presented is a strawman.
Please study up on what a confounding factor is, as well as what the word "strawman" means.
|
On February 09 2013 09:26 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 08:39 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 07:31 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:On February 08 2013 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Correlation does not prove a Theory--it is, however, grounds for a Hypothesis.
Observation: "Maggots are on cow shit each day--I wonder why?"
Hypothesis: "Cow shit turns into maggots?"
Test: "Wrong"
Hypothesis: "Some animal puts maggots in cow shit?"
Test: "Flies do!"
Theory: "Flies lay eggs in cow shit which turn into maggots."
It also works for guns.
Observation: "The US has a shit tonne of guns, and a shit tonne of gun deaths"
Hypothesis: "Does having a shit tonne of guns allow for a shit tonne of gun deaths?"
Test: .......
So while yes, Correlation =/= causation--correlation is a good reason to test for something.
Example:
Observation: Girlfriend keeps fucking other guys.
Hypothesis: Maybe she doesn't love me?
Test: Yo babe, you still love me?
Theory: When my girlfriend fucks my friends more than me--she doesn't love me.
So while you can't skip the test portion--most of the time the hypothesis comes about because you kind of already know the answer. Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained. The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations. Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor. Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something. For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles. But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest. My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion. And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation. I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation. Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence. Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]" And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them. In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership. However, high gun ownership in the US correlating to high gun violence in the US is not disproved by the existence of non-gun violence in the US no matter how high--that would be a strawman. The correlation still exists and would need proof to refute it--not simply relative comparisons but actual explanations for why the correlation exists. Stick to the facts--the US has a lot of guns, the US has a lot of gun violence. Saying its on the downturn does not negate it. Saying there are other non-gun violence being committed does not negate it. Those are just strawmen walking away from the data. Stick to the data. Does your reading comprehension suck or are you being deliberately dense? I didn't argue that gun violence is on the decline, even though it is. My argument is that the United States has very high rates of violent crime in general, which means that guns can't be the cause when there are high rates of crimes that have nothing to do with guns. Consider all the facts, instead of covering your eyes and ignoring the other factors. The existence of high non-gun violence does not dismiss the existence of high gun violence. That is a strawman. It does not dismiss it, but it implies that other factors are at work. Also, you don't seem to understand what a strawman is. To use your own argument, the existence of high gun violence is correlated with high non-gun violence. So wouldn't you say this implies that the high amount of non-gun violence is the cause? Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Is there more guns than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Is there more gun violence than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Due to this correlation people feel that there is a possible causal relationship between the two statistics. And I've explained why this causal relationship doesn't exist because of a confounding factor. Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Saying that there are other variables that you care about more than the variables initially presented is a strawman. Please study up on what a confounding factor is, as well as what the word "strawman" means.
The discussion is on gun violence and its possible causal relationship with gun possession.
If you wish to start a separate conversation about a causal relationship between gun violence and non-gun violence then you are free to start that separate conversation--you bringing it up is a strawman.
You see, a strawman argument is using a separate data point instead of the actual data point in question. The discussion is on the existence of gun violence--you wanting to bring up other topics is you using a strawman to discuss outside topics from the main topic at hand.
|
On February 09 2013 09:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:26 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 08:39 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 07:31 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 08 2013 10:56 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
Except your hypothesis is wrong, as I already explained.
The high gun crime rate in the United States is a symptom of the high overall violent crime rate, not a cause. Even if all gun crimes stopped happening tomorrow (and weren't replaced by other sorts of violent crime, which is a stretch), the United States would still have ridiculously high violent crime rates compared to other first world nations.
Try to spend a few moments with your head out of your behind and actually think about the more complex issue at hand instead of scapegoating the irrelevant factor. Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something. For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles. But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest. My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion. And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation. I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation. Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence. Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]" And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them. In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership. However, high gun ownership in the US correlating to high gun violence in the US is not disproved by the existence of non-gun violence in the US no matter how high--that would be a strawman. The correlation still exists and would need proof to refute it--not simply relative comparisons but actual explanations for why the correlation exists. Stick to the facts--the US has a lot of guns, the US has a lot of gun violence. Saying its on the downturn does not negate it. Saying there are other non-gun violence being committed does not negate it. Those are just strawmen walking away from the data. Stick to the data. Does your reading comprehension suck or are you being deliberately dense? I didn't argue that gun violence is on the decline, even though it is. My argument is that the United States has very high rates of violent crime in general, which means that guns can't be the cause when there are high rates of crimes that have nothing to do with guns. Consider all the facts, instead of covering your eyes and ignoring the other factors. The existence of high non-gun violence does not dismiss the existence of high gun violence. That is a strawman. It does not dismiss it, but it implies that other factors are at work. Also, you don't seem to understand what a strawman is. To use your own argument, the existence of high gun violence is correlated with high non-gun violence. So wouldn't you say this implies that the high amount of non-gun violence is the cause? On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Is there more guns than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Is there more gun violence than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Due to this correlation people feel that there is a possible causal relationship between the two statistics. And I've explained why this causal relationship doesn't exist because of a confounding factor. On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Saying that there are other variables that you care about more than the variables initially presented is a strawman. Please study up on what a confounding factor is, as well as what the word "strawman" means. The discussion is on gun violence and its possible causal relationship with gun possession. If you wish to start a separate conversation about a causal relationship between gun violence and non-gun violence then you are free to start that separate conversation--you bringing it up is a strawman.
Wrong. The topic of this discussion is whether people should be allowed to own firearms.
The key to this question is whether gun ownership causes harm. One of the arguments that this does cause harm is suggesting that gun ownership causes gun violence. The counterargument is that gun violence is caused not by gun ownership, but the same problems that cause non-gun violence.
On February 09 2013 09:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You see, a strawman argument is using a separate data point instead of the actual data point in question. The discussion is on the existence of gun violence--you wanting to bring up other topics is you using a strawman to discuss outside topics from the main topic at hand.
Wrong. I can't tell whether you're just incredibly ignorant or trolling.
|
On February 09 2013 09:36 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 09:26 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 08:39 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 07:31 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 04:28 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Um.... my post was on the clarification of the importance of correlation. That, even though it doesn't prove something, it's still good grounds to start pursuing something.
For example--if handguns cause more deaths than assault rifles and long guns; then that is a good statistic to use as a jumping off point for seeing if its a good idea to ban hand guns. Or, at the least, to have as lopsided a preferential treatment of hand guns as opposed to assault rifles.
But that's neither here nor there; the point of my post is that people who toss out correlation =/= causation, although accurate, are also dishonest.
My hypothesis (I'm assuming you're targeting my example of gun ownership/gun deaths ratio) is untested by the fact that I haven't tested it and hence I did not put a Theory/Conclusion. And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation. I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation. Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence. Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]" And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them. In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership. However, high gun ownership in the US correlating to high gun violence in the US is not disproved by the existence of non-gun violence in the US no matter how high--that would be a strawman. The correlation still exists and would need proof to refute it--not simply relative comparisons but actual explanations for why the correlation exists. Stick to the facts--the US has a lot of guns, the US has a lot of gun violence. Saying its on the downturn does not negate it. Saying there are other non-gun violence being committed does not negate it. Those are just strawmen walking away from the data. Stick to the data. Does your reading comprehension suck or are you being deliberately dense? I didn't argue that gun violence is on the decline, even though it is. My argument is that the United States has very high rates of violent crime in general, which means that guns can't be the cause when there are high rates of crimes that have nothing to do with guns. Consider all the facts, instead of covering your eyes and ignoring the other factors. The existence of high non-gun violence does not dismiss the existence of high gun violence. That is a strawman. It does not dismiss it, but it implies that other factors are at work. Also, you don't seem to understand what a strawman is. To use your own argument, the existence of high gun violence is correlated with high non-gun violence. So wouldn't you say this implies that the high amount of non-gun violence is the cause? On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Is there more guns than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Is there more gun violence than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Due to this correlation people feel that there is a possible causal relationship between the two statistics. And I've explained why this causal relationship doesn't exist because of a confounding factor. On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Saying that there are other variables that you care about more than the variables initially presented is a strawman. Please study up on what a confounding factor is, as well as what the word "strawman" means. The discussion is on gun violence and its possible causal relationship with gun possession. If you wish to start a separate conversation about a causal relationship between gun violence and non-gun violence then you are free to start that separate conversation--you bringing it up is a strawman. Wrong. The topic of this discussion is whether people should be allowed to own firearms. The key to this question is whether gun ownership causes harm. One of the arguments that this does cause harm is suggesting that gun ownership causes gun violence. The counterargument is that gun violence is caused not by gun ownership, but the same problems that cause non-gun violence. Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You see, a strawman argument is using a separate data point instead of the actual data point in question. The discussion is on the existence of gun violence--you wanting to bring up other topics is you using a strawman to discuss outside topics from the main topic at hand. Wrong. I can't tell whether you're just incredibly ignorant or trolling.
Um... let me quote the opening sentence of the OP
"The other thread is going off topic with people debating about the general right to own and carry guns."
So uh... you're wrong. Empirically so.
And since you don't read your own posts, let me quote your favorite friend Wikipedia.
"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y."
Person one--gun violence correlates with gun ownership in the US
Person two (this is you by the way)-- non-gun violence is also high
One person points out that gun violence is something that needs to be talked about, you counteract by saying non-gun violence is also present. How does that in any way address the actual existence of gun violence? It doesn't. We don't stop talking about gun violence just because non-gun violence is also present.
So um... yeah... read what you post before posting them?
|
On February 09 2013 09:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On February 09 2013 09:36 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 09:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 09:26 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 08:39 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:38 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 07:31 sunprince wrote:On February 09 2013 07:17 Thieving Magpie wrote:On February 09 2013 06:15 sunprince wrote:
[quote]
And your post was wrong, since I didn't just toss out correlation =/= causation, I also explained why correlation in this case does not imply causation.
I was specifically debunking deathly rat's false assertion that correlation implies causation. Then maybe you should take a look at your own evidence. Per the wiki article you linked: "Much of scientific evidence is based upon a correlation of variables[17] – they tend to occur together. Scientists are careful to point out that correlation does not necessarily mean causation. The assumption that A causes B simply because A correlates with B is a logical fallacy – it is not a legitimate form of argument. However, sometimes people commit the opposite fallacy – dismissing correlation entirely, as if it does not imply causation. This would dismiss a large swath of important scientific evidence.[17]" And the point, which you're still missing, is that I didn't just dismiss the correlations, I explained them. In statistical/empirical terms, I've argued that the "guns cause gun violence" is completely overlooking a confounding factor: the United States has high rates of violence independent of gun ownership. However, high gun ownership in the US correlating to high gun violence in the US is not disproved by the existence of non-gun violence in the US no matter how high--that would be a strawman. The correlation still exists and would need proof to refute it--not simply relative comparisons but actual explanations for why the correlation exists. Stick to the facts--the US has a lot of guns, the US has a lot of gun violence. Saying its on the downturn does not negate it. Saying there are other non-gun violence being committed does not negate it. Those are just strawmen walking away from the data. Stick to the data. Does your reading comprehension suck or are you being deliberately dense? I didn't argue that gun violence is on the decline, even though it is. My argument is that the United States has very high rates of violent crime in general, which means that guns can't be the cause when there are high rates of crimes that have nothing to do with guns. Consider all the facts, instead of covering your eyes and ignoring the other factors. The existence of high non-gun violence does not dismiss the existence of high gun violence. That is a strawman. It does not dismiss it, but it implies that other factors are at work. Also, you don't seem to understand what a strawman is. To use your own argument, the existence of high gun violence is correlated with high non-gun violence. So wouldn't you say this implies that the high amount of non-gun violence is the cause? On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Is there more guns than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Is there more gun violence than normal in the US compared to similar ranked countries? Yes. Due to this correlation people feel that there is a possible causal relationship between the two statistics. And I've explained why this causal relationship doesn't exist because of a confounding factor. On February 09 2013 09:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Saying that there are other variables that you care about more than the variables initially presented is a strawman. Please study up on what a confounding factor is, as well as what the word "strawman" means. The discussion is on gun violence and its possible causal relationship with gun possession. If you wish to start a separate conversation about a causal relationship between gun violence and non-gun violence then you are free to start that separate conversation--you bringing it up is a strawman. Wrong. The topic of this discussion is whether people should be allowed to own firearms. The key to this question is whether gun ownership causes harm. One of the arguments that this does cause harm is suggesting that gun ownership causes gun violence. The counterargument is that gun violence is caused not by gun ownership, but the same problems that cause non-gun violence. On February 09 2013 09:33 Thieving Magpie wrote:
You see, a strawman argument is using a separate data point instead of the actual data point in question. The discussion is on the existence of gun violence--you wanting to bring up other topics is you using a strawman to discuss outside topics from the main topic at hand. Wrong. I can't tell whether you're just incredibly ignorant or trolling. Um... let me quote the opening sentence of the OP "The other thread is going off topic with people debating about the general right to own and carry guns." So uh... you're wrong. Empirically so.
Once again, your reading comprehension fails you. The other one was intended to discuss the right of ex-convicts to own guns. This thread is the off-shoot in order to discuss the general right to own and carry guns.
Also, you are once again using a word you don't know the meaning of; in this case, "empirical".
On February 09 2013 09:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
"The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument
Person 1 has position X.
Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y."
Person one--gun violence correlates with gun ownership in the US
Person two (this is you by the way)-- non-gun violence is also high
One person points out that gun violence is something that needs to be talked about, you counteract by saying non-gun violence is also present.
Your reading comprehension fails you again. I didn't present a superficially similar position. A strawman is a misrepresentation of your argument, and I'm not doing that. I'm explaining why your argument is wrong.
On February 09 2013 09:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:
How does that in any way address the actual existence of gun violence? It doesn't. We don't stop talking about gun violence just because non-gun violence is also present.
It does address the actual existence of gun violence, because it disputes the causative relationship you keep trying to advance without any proof.
Person 1 (you): Gun ownership causes gun violence.
Person 2 (me): No, it doesn't. Other problems cause violence, of which gun violence is only a subset. Gun ownership does not cause gun violence for the same reason that knife ownership does not cause knife violence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2e/Burglaries_per_1%2C000_pop.svg)
EPT
