I ask my interlocutors in this discussion if they are also prepared to change their views if such an analysis shows more guns are associated with more gun homicides.
Anyone prepared to answer yes to this?
I ask my interlocutors in this discussion if they are also prepared to change their views if such an analysis shows more guns are associated with more gun homicides.
Anyone prepared to answer yes to this?
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
I've always been skeptical of phrasing it like that. I'd rather look at violent crime. If country A has guns vs country B that does not, one would assume there would be more "gun" homicides in country A. But I'd wager that violent crime would be lower in country A as well.Originally Posted by nsacpi
But I don't think I'll ever be convinced that the object of the murder is to blame more than the murderer. Like I said - the double standards from the left on this are endless. It seems to be isolated to guns... not alcohol or trucks for example when similar tragedies occur
It could. That's how people justify the drug war, too.
But the left says we see all these shootings because of the easy access to guns. I think that data refutes that point. I don't think that's very arguable
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s...orrelation.asp
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Then the left needs to change their argument that the reason for gun violence is because the of easy access to guns.
You can't have it both ways.
You can't stand on your pedestal and say we'd have less gun violence if there were only less guns. Then say it's false correlation when data shows that gun homicides have gone down while gun access has gone up.
Just to make clear, I'm saying thou art the one committing a spurious correlation. A spurious correlation can be both a positive or negative one. It involves picking two variables and positing a relationship between them when in reality it is some other variable (s) that is the meaningful driver of the trends that are being observed.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
But the left's narrative is that more guns = more gun deaths
They started the spurious correlation. I posted data to refute that.
The narrative could be correct. Your graph doesn't disprove it.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Oh.
Well I guess that's a nice position to be on the argument.
"No matter what, the narrative we want to push could be correct."
I liked your graph. It is thought provoking, which is always a good thing. But I don't think it quite shows what you think it does.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
What do you think it shows?
I'm not sure to be honest. My initial reaction is it can't be right because it is so counter intuitive. But it worth testing in a multivariate model that includes things like spending on police, incarceration rates, demographic data on age groups more prone to commit crimes, etc. If after you include these other variables, you still have a statistically significant negative relationship between gun violence and number of guns, then you would really have a strong argument that undermines that narrative you refer to.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
I also think it is worth looking at the two variables in your graph on a state by state basis. Do states with high number of guns per capita also have low gun homicide rates.
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
I'd be interested to plot a line on the graph showing the number of Americans/households who own guns. Higher gun sales =/= broader gun ownership.
But the argument is that "access to guns" leads to all these shootings.
If there are more guns in circulation, doesn't that increase "access"?
There are a lot of factors that would be difficult to graph.
Someone mentioned the demise of two parent homes, which I think has to be a factor. But what age do you pick to measure that? Does the second parent count if they were in the home until the child was in middle school, or high school, or do they have to be there until the day of the shooting?
Declining church attendance is a potential factor that I see mentioned often. How often does one need to attend in order to count as an attendant? Do they need to do anything to actively participate, or is just occasionally sitting in a pew for an hour good enough?
What about extracurricular activities? Dating status? Physical appearance? Exercise? Hobbies? What kind of movies do they watch, what books do they read, what kind of music do they listen to?
Much of this gets blamed (I think correctly) on bullying. How many times does someone need to be picked on before they are bullied? How do we define "picked on?" More importantly, are we actually willing to look into these factors and make unpopular changes to fix the problem? What if those answers aren't politically correct? I have felt for years that the over policing of school fights is a big factor in this. I didn't make this feeling up, it's based on my own experience of being the new kid in school too many times. Bullies don't stop because you tell a powerless teacher that you are being picked on. They don't stop because you tell an overworked guidance counselor about your feelings. They don't even stop when you ask them nicely. Ideally, the bully will have peers around who disapprove of the behavior, but that happens less often that we all would hope. Win or lose, the next best option, the only other option I am aware of, is to attempt to stop it yourself. I was fortunate enough to go to school in a time where that meant detention or an in school suspension. Now that same behavior results in a kid being handcuffed and put in the back of a police car. It's ridiculous to arrest middle school kids for defending themselves when no one else will. Kids fight, it's a pressure relief valve. We've sealed that pressure valve and now we're looking around at each other with dumbfounded expressions while the pots are exploding.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
BedellBrave (02-20-2018)
Tough to find in one chart
If I have more time, I can plot in a sql database and see how the correlation breaks down. But you can at least eye-ball it here
Also - I think it's extremely important to remove suicide rates in gun deaths... and I don't know whether this chart does that
I think that's a reasonable point. More guns = potentially more "access" to guns, through theft or off-books sales. "Access" in the larger picture encompassses legal barriers/cost for legal purchases.
But I do want to have your take on my suggestion, though. "More guns" seems like a less meaningful data point than "broader gun ownership" if you're seeking to establish a positive correlation between higher gun sales and fewer gun homicides.
Agreed. I saw something recently showing that the majority of guns sales during the Obama boom years were to existing gun owners.
Go get him!
Founding member of the Whiny Little Bitches and Pricks Club
I would do a scatter plot w regression line...yes better to focus on homicidesTough to find in one chart
If I have more time, I can plot in a sql database and see how the correlation breaks down. But you can at least eye-ball it here
Also - I think it's extremely important to remove suicide rates in gun deaths... and I don't know whether this chart does that
"I am a victim, I will tell you. I am a victim."
"I am your retribution."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
