If you're seeing this topic then another mass shooting hap…

On February 17 2018 15:13 Aquanim wrote:

Your statement is technically correct but not useful.

I cannot say that other countries' regulations will certainly work in the United States.

I can say that experience in other countries makes it MORE LIKELY those or similar regulations will have a beneficial effect.

100% confidence is not a reasonable threshold for making decisions.

EDIT:

No. The "real issue" is what and when firearms are permitted to be owned and carried, and the consequences which follow from that. Arguments on the Internet are not real issues, even if they are about real issues.

On February 17 2018 15:46 superstartran wrote:


No, statistically false. You cannot use rules and laws that work for a completely different population with a completely different circumstance and say that it will work out just fine.

Sometimes I wonder if you guys actually have ever taken a basic college/university statistic course.

On February 17 2018 15:52 Aquanim wrote:

I didn't say that it "will work out just fine". That statement implies certainty which I acknowledge I do not have.

I said that previous experience, in a scenario which is similar in some ways but different in others, makes it MORE LIKELY that there will be a beneficial effect.
+ Show Spoiler +

Please respond to the actual statements being made by others.

I haven't just taken one, I've taught one. Knock off the ad hominem arguments, okay?

On February 17 2018 16:07 Velr wrote:
You probably just never got to enjoy/teach the "in the US statistics work diffrent" course.

On February 17 2018 16:41 superstartran wrote:Then you'd know that your statements are false because you cannot just take one set of rules that 'worked' for a completely different population and expect it to have the same results or even similar results for a completely different population, especially when the circumstances around that 2nd population are completely different.

When you're doing cross comparisons between different countries you have to control for different variables across those countries, otherwise it's completely moot to even try to compare the two. Just simply saying "Here are these statistics, it works for this country, why can't it work for your country" is a load of horse shit. You can't even say it's likely to work, because you have nothing to actually compare; I can point to various different countries with various different laws regarding firearms, wildly different variations in number of firearms, and wildly different results in terms of firearm related crimes/homicides/suicides.

And two, the fact that you are completely glossing over the fact that you completely violated one of the basic rules of statistics already shows that you either A) Have an agenda and are completely ignoring basic fundamental statistic rules because of said agenda or B) Have never taken a basic intro statistics course in your life.

On February 17 2018 17:07 Aquanim wrote:

If you can demonstrate that there is consensus across the professional field of statistics that research done into the effects of gun laws in other countries has literally no bearing on the United States, then I will acknowledge you have a point.

Until you have demonstrated that, stop repeating this argument.

Saying the words "basic laws of statistics" over and over doesn't mean anything when I have no reason to believe you have any authority on the subject.

On February 17 2018 17:11 superstartran wrote:



Yeah bro, just keep ignoring the very fundamental basics of scientific method. That will for sure bolster your argument.


Controlling for variables is one of the most basic and fundamental concepts in science, and is basically taught day 1 in intro to stats courses. The fact that you and others in here tried to just cross compare between various different countries without controlling for various different confounding variables already throws all your credibility out the window.

On February 17 2018 17:18 Aquanim wrote:

You CANNOT control for all of the confounding variables in real life. By your standards there is no possible evidence that could lead to any scientific conclusion whatsoever outside a perfectly controlled environment.

In real life, you guess. Making guesses based on imperfect evidence, and then refining your theories based on the outcome of those guesses, is how both the scientific method and real life works.

On February 17 2018 17:21 superstartran wrote:


LOL

So now we're saying you can't control for all confounding variables now? I'm not saying you have to control for all variables; you didn't even TRY is the entire point.

You cannot make sweeping statements like 'gun control laws worked in these countries so they will likely work in the United States.' You haven't even extrapolated information like how those countries got their numbers, how each country reports homicide numbers, which groups are committing the homicide, where the vast majority of those homicides are committed, etc.

These are all realistically controllable variables, but instead of doing the legwork, the research, etc. you simply put out a general and sweeping statement. And then you try and say that you are well versed in statistics? Lmao.

On February 17 2018 16:41 superstartran wrote:




Then you'd know that your statements are false because you cannot just take one set of rules that 'worked' for a completely different population and expect it to have the same results or even similar results for a completely different population, especially when the circumstances around that 2nd population are completely different.

When you're doing cross comparisons between different countries you have to control for different variables across those countries, otherwise it's completely moot to even try to compare the two. Just simply saying "Here are these statistics, it works for this country, why can't it work for your country" is a load of horse shit. You can't even say it's likely to work, because you have nothing to actually compare; I can point to various different countries with various different laws regarding firearms, wildly different variations in number of firearms, and wildly different results in terms of firearm related crimes/homicides/suicides.

And two, the fact that you are completely glossing over the fact that you completely violated one of the basic rules of statistics already shows that you either A) Have an agenda and are completely ignoring basic fundamental statistic rules because of said agenda or B) Have never taken a basic intro statistics course in your life.







I hope you realize that your own country is the poster child of why having a high number of available firearms doesn't actually translate to more homicides.

On February 17 2018 17:32 Aquanim wrote:

So you agree that if somebody did do the legwork and demonstrate that the confounding variables at least might not contradict the conclusion that different gun laws would improve the crime situation in the US, you would not laugh at them and would instead listen?

On February 17 2018 17:40 Velr wrote:


I hope you realise that you don't know shit about how the things actually are in my country. Yes, there are many guns, most whiteout any ammo, people are forced to have them and most are just dusting away in cellars or attics.

I couldn't tell you when i saw a gun in private hands the last time. For sure wasn't this year.

On February 17 2018 17:40 Simberto wrote:
Two points:

a) Yes, you can make a statement like "Every other first-world country has a lot less gun deaths than the US, lets look for reasons for that."

Your answer to that is "OMG demographics US exceptionalism nothing from outside the US ever applies to the US"

A more reasonable answer would be to look at stuff that all those countries do, which the US not does, that are maybe closely connected to the issue. You may not absolutely get a direct causal link. But if you can strongly correlate gun laws and gun deaths, (which you can, as i linked earlier), that is a strong hint that they might be connected. If you add to that that you don't really lose anything of value by applying reasonable (by which i mean euro-style) gun laws, it becomes increasingly erratic to continue to demand absolute proof based on statistics which you yourself made impossible to acquire. That seems less like you actually care about the proof, and more like you just stick your fingers in your ear and say "nanana can't hear you!" whenever someone tries to link gun deaths and gun control. The fact that the link between the two is also so intuitively obvious makes the whole situation even weirder.

b) You said that gun deaths (about 30000/year) are so few that they don't actually matter or validate something as strict as having laws that inhibits the ability to own a tool that is only used for killing things. If you apply them same logic to terrorism (less than 100/year), terrorism should lead to about 1/300 of the action that guns do. And 1/300 of nothing is still nothing. Yet you are probably fine with starting two wars over it, majorly restricting the freedom of your citizens (PATRIOT act), spying on literally everyone (NSA), and torturing people without a warrant in black site prisons like Guantanamo. From my experience, people in the US who are against gun control usually think that at least one of those things is a reasonable response to terrorism.

You can't have it both ways. Either the terrorism response is laughably overproportional, or something really should be done about guns. Even moreso, the same standard of absolute truth that seems to be necessary for guns does not seem to matter for terrorism. Methods do not need to be proven effective, they just need to feel like "doing something" and be based on some sort of intuitive logic.

On February 17 2018 17:43 superstartran wrote:
...
Yes, because then that would be actual factual evidence. And remember, if we're talking about the specific case of mass shooters, we're talking about an event that makes up 1% of firearm related crimes. Good example would be Kellerman's study. Yes, there were massive flaws in his study (such as selection bias, etc.) however there was some good that came out of his study. Example, you could see from his study that not all gun owners are the same, and that obviously certain population groups are going to be more prone to violence in general (particularly firearm related violence). It was pretty funny because actually if you followed along and looked at some of the data he pulled, you'd see that there was a stronger correlation to people who rented homes were more likely to commit firearm offenses more than anything else (which would be in line with the very popular perception/assumption that poverty stricken areas are very prone to violent crimes in general).

On February 17 2018 17:43 superstartran wrote:
And for those who believe I am just making up shit and our friend from Switzerland tries to lie here's basically how you obtain guns there as a private citizen


https://i.imgur.com/Fz3kGIJ.jpg

On February 18 2018 10:20 TheYango wrote:

The last time this came up (I can't remember if it was here or the US Politics Thread because the same people have the same inane arguments in both threads), I believe the argument was that while, yes, it is easy to acquire firearms in Switzerland, it is virtually impossible to acquire ammunition for said guns because the military maintains tight control on them. So you can have all the assault weapons you want, but they're merely fancy display pieces because you won't have anything to fire with them.

On February 18 2018 14:55 superstartran wrote:




That's not true.


Buying ammunition in Switzerland requires


1) Valid ID
2) Residence Address
3) Criminal Record Copy
4) Weapon Permit


The types of ammunition are abit more restricted in Switzerland, such as no armor piercing, no incendiary, and no handgun ammunition that causes deformation (aka Hollowpoints).


Ammunition at ranges are restricted because those are provided by the government there, buying in private stores (which there are plenty of places to buy) is easy.


Anyone arguing otherwise is flat out lying.

On February 18 2018 18:44 sc-darkness wrote:
That's interesting. Why do they sell weapons if you can't buy ammo? Why do people buy weapons without ammo? Is the idea to have private museum? :D

On February 18 2018 18:49 PoulsenB wrote:

Still you need three pieces of government-issued documentation in order to buy ammunition or a gun. Meanwhile in many places in the US you can just go into a shop and buy a AR15 rifle on a whim.

On February 18 2018 19:12 Jockmcplop wrote:
We all know we can't ban guns in America. Its just not going to happen, despite the obvious correlation between gun ownership and gun crime.