|
evilweasel posted:It was not subjected to peer review nor published in a place that would require the author to know what they are talking about and place their reputation on the line to a degree with their critique. Legitimate scientists love to tear apart their collegues when they make mathmatical errors or other errors in their studies. If he did, there would be scientists doing it - not a respected scientist* (has a doctorate in biology) talking about how jet fuel can't melt steel beams. Well too bad Kellerman never made his dataset available for criticism! And I finally took a look at that guncite article you keep rambling about and it actually cites something like 6 different peer reviewed studies. evilweasel posted:given that you made two criticisms i could evaluate on the merits, and one unsubstantiated claim he ignored confounding variables, once it became obvious the two criticisms that you elaborated on enough to test were self-evidently wrong why would i believe the one that you just assured me was there given that you were 0/2 on tested claims? So you just don't understand statistics then, check
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
various cheeses posted:Maaaaaaaan I don't give a poo poo anymore. Silencers rolls off the tongue easier. If you don't have complete and encyclopedic knowledge of guns then you aren't allowed to ever talk about guns in any way. I'm sorry but that's just the gun law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Well too bad Kellerman never made his dataset available for criticism! If you think you can find viable peer reviewed studies through that then feel free to post what peer reviewed studies support your argument, i will not bother combing through such obvious poo poo as 'guncite.com' for corns of truth. You guys are trying to claim that a well-known peer-reviewed study was debunked yet the best evidence you can muster is, well, bad arguments that misunderstand the study. Jarmak posted:So you just don't understand statistics then, check it has come to this, "not taking my word for it that a million confounding variables means you don't understand statistics. ignore that i botched basic issues about what the study was even saying, please"
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you don't have complete and encyclopedic knowledge of guns then you aren't allowed to ever talk about guns in any way. I'm sure but that's just the gun law. For the purposes of this thread, I don't care if you call a magazine a clip or whatever. Call it a shootyholder for all I care. It's just one of those dumb things that sidetracks the thread briefly. And who would want to sidetrack such a fun thread?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you don't have complete and encyclopedic knowledge of guns then you aren't allowed to ever talk about guns in any way. I'm sorry but that's just the gun law. Oh man, on some other forum I got such a roasting for daring to suggest that caliber had anything to do with the deadliness of projectiles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
Lemming posted:lmao I thought this was a fakepost until the end, what a piece of poo poo I'm comfortable with putting it out there because, as someone who is indifferent to the human cost of a bustling domestic firearms industry, I couldn't care less about the moral judgment of your average fedora-wearing goon. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:I voted straight Democrat for the first decade of my voting history. Then a few years ago I took up recreational slaving on a whim.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:51
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:Oh man, on some other forum I got such a roasting for daring to suggest that caliber had anything to do with the deadliness of projectiles. Depends. Individually a larger caliber is more likely to kill, but after you've been shot so many times it really doesn't matter. Like the .22lr machine gun with a drum clip that held some absurd amount of bullets and chewed straight through body armor. That'd kill you just as dead as a couple .45s. That said, if you shoot something more than five times and it's still not dead you're either too incompetent to use a gun or fighting a werewolf and a gun isn't going to save you anyway.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:53
|
|
|
You don't need a dozen peer-reviewed articles for Kellermann's 93 study. Just read the drat thing. Its some of the shoddiest research I've seen. If you read the full text of the '93 study (cited in so many articles and threads) instead of just the summary you can see where the problems begin to arise. Instead of a nationwide randomized sample he kept using King County but also cherry-picked two other oddly specific areas as well- Shelby County, Tennessee and Cuyahoga County, Ohio. This led to a massive (and probably intentional) overrepresentation of African-Americans and those living below the poverty line; that means the study is comprised mostly of the poorest and most oppressed people in some of the most unusually violent cities like Memphis and Cleveland in order to produce a very specific result. Narrowing the data further to ensure a favorable result, it also only looked at homicides that occurred inside the home of the victim (which were only 23.9% of the total homicides in the case study area.) Diving into the body of the work you can also see it failed to find more than a very casual correlation between gun ownership and risk of death, with many other many things presenting a much higher odds-risk ratio than the 1.6 they found for "guns in the home." Table 3 shows far higher correlation between homicide and things like living alone (3.4,) living in a household where ANY member has ANY sort of arrest history (4.2,) renting a home instead of owning (5.9,) drug use (9,) alcohol consumption (as high as 20,) and many other common things. The fact that they only concentrate on gun ownership in the conclusion as "significant" while failing to frame it against their other findings goes to show you this was a study meant not to objectively identify risks but work towards a predetermined and leading conclusion. Many other problems and biases that have been pointed out by in works by people like Kleck and Schaffer include: The correlation they found with handguns was nowhere near as strong as the one between rifles and shotguns, which is... strange, to say the least, as there should be no mechanism that encourages others to kill you just for owning a pistol rather than a shotgun. This begs the question- even though there's a casual correlation between guns in the home and slightly elevated homicide risks, are they actually related? How? They fail to prove causation or even show a correlation more important than living in an apartment, which means it's far from a conclusive finding. It relied on self-reporting to determine gun ownership, when Schaffer looked at the data that Kellerman finally provided 5 years after the fact he found a large discrepancy between the amount of gun ownership reported between the cases and controls that was seemingly not adjusted for. It doesn't prove you're more likely to die FROM a gun, as per the study's own data less than 50% of the murders were with a firearm (which is lower than the national average of ~66%.) It doesn't prove that self-defense is likely to increase your risk of death as the majority of those killed (56.2%) were unarmed and there was no evidence of resistance. Of the 43.8% who lived in a household with a gun and who died attempting to defend themselves only 5% actually used a firearm, which is the lowest recorded death rate of any means of defense amongst the victims who tried to fight back. That could actually suggest it's the most successful method, although I can't use the evidence provided just here to prove that as it's not a comprehensive self-defense study but a very narrow and specific mortality study. At the same time, however, that narrow scope fails to prove Kellerman's point either. Unlike his previous studies where he was comparing actual self-defense to gun deaths here he included justifiable homicide by police and private citizens defending themselves in the gun death figure, in order to pad it as much as possible. He also DID still include illegal activities like drug-dealing, as is evidenced by the data in Table 1. If you dig into it, the study reads more like "20 years ago some really poor people who lived in the shittiest places we could hand-pick were murdered at home by their friends and family. Some of those people owned a handgun, although far more lived alone or in apartments or drank" rather than "there is firm evidence using a gun in self-defense will get you killed everywhere in all situations." They were able to find weak correlation in a tailor-made case study, not causation in a full study of the US. On top of that, a crime studies from two decades ago are incredibly outdated. Homicide rates have more than halved since then, and homicide amongst African-Americans (the primary group represented here) has dropped dramatically since '92. No matter what way you slice it it's not exactly convincing proof to use in an argument now, over two decades later. Any paper or study that cites him or in work in support of their conclusion does not exactly fill me with confidence; either they didn't examine the content of his work and they are incompetent or they are fully aware of his deficiencies as a researcher and used his work anyway because it supports their own predetermined conclusions. Forgive me for being incredulous.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:If you think you can find viable peer reviewed studies through that then feel free to post what peer reviewed studies support your argument, i will not bother combing through such obvious poo poo as 'guncite.com' for corns of truth. You guys are trying to claim that a well-known peer-reviewed study was debunked yet the best evidence you can muster is, well, bad arguments that misunderstand the study. I didn't botch anything, you don't understand what the gently caress you're talking about and you're trying to run some sort of stupid appeal to authority because you're incapable of actually arguing the methodology on its merits. Hilariously enough that guncite article is pretty much just a summary of all the professional criticism that's been leveled at the study and literally all of it is cited, but you just want to stick your fingers in your ear because for some reason it doesn't count because its been aggregated by people who disagree with your premises. If you have a study that shows every single variable other then what you're attempting to make a claim about has a greater effect, then there's a really good loving chance that you've identified a spurious correlation. Is it possible to control for this? Yes, but its loving hard and Kellermann not only doesn't do so at all, he doesn't even control for the origin of the gun used in the shooting. But here's a low hanging fruit for you so you can stop playing the citation needed game with basic logical arguments: http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/5/1/64.short
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:On top of that, a crime studies from two decades ago are incredibly outdated. Homicide rates have more than halved since then, and homicide amongst African-Americans (the primary group represented here) has dropped dramatically since '92. No matter what way you slice it it's not exactly convincing proof to use in an argument now, over two decades later. most of your critique is the idiot stuff i've already rebutted, but this is particularly precious as the reason that the study is outdated is because the nra, upset with what science says about gun violence, banned funding science on gun violence but generally like i mean, what do gun nuts not get about "sure, drunks are more likely to be murdered, but nobody pretends that being a drunk makes you safer". nobody says that the most important factor in if you get murdered is if you keep a gun in your house. that's not the issue. the issue is that manchildren with power fantasies claim that the gun makes them safer, when statistics show the opposite repeating that criticism that other factors are stronger makes it really, really obvious that you haven't thought through your "debunking" with even an iota of critical thought. this is why i'm not going to bother rebutting "totally accurate debunkings" from idiots like you or some cohort of yours with a website or a gun mailing list, because they're self-evidently worthless and repeating criticisms you probably heard thirdhand. i could be wrong, perhaps ten years ago someone leveled a real criticism at it, and it's just that everyone has heard it fourthhand and mangled the details.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I didn't botch anything, you don't understand what the gently caress you're talking about and you're trying to run some sort of stupid appeal to authority because you're incapable of actually arguing the methodology on its merits. Hilariously enough that guncite article is pretty much just a summary of all the professional criticism that's been leveled at the study and literally all of it is cited, but you just want to stick your fingers in your ear because for some reason it doesn't count because its been aggregated by people who disagree with your premises. please tell me what a comf, co, condomding variable is, i've been curious for years and would very much like to know
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:most of your critique is the idiot stuff i've already rebutted, but this is particularly precious as the reason that the study is outdated is because the nra, upset with what science says about gun violence, banned funding science on gun violence Yes, because the NRA can magically enact a ban on studying gun violence. Oh wait, that NEVER HAPPENED. "B-b-b-but but the CDC budgets!" Oh yes, after the CDC wasted millions of taxpaper dollars on Kellermann's bullshit they got their wrist slapped and told not to waste money on obviously bad advocacy. Somehow, this stopped every federal agency from the FBI to the ATF to the CDC from doing anything gun related, forever. (Except it didn't.) Lie some more.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
Oh man now there are two threads? gently caress Well, as long as all of you keep in mind that today, some 80 people died because of guns, it's cool. FYI, there have been a couple shootings on street corners, a bunch of suicides with guns, and a few gun-related accidents resulting in death today. Each of these events is an individual reason to overturn DC v. Heller and McDonald v. Chicago, and institute stringent gun control focusing on handguns, through buyback programs, licensing for guns and owners, and mandatory shooting practice and psychological testing for those who wish against all odds to actually own and keep guns. It is reasonable to believe that within 30 years or so your country will be back to normal if steps are taken today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Yes, because the NRA can magically enact a ban on studying gun violence.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:please tell me what a comf, co, condomding variable is, i've been curious for years and would very much like to know
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Hopefully the next president will be Bernie Sanders and his SC appointees will actually be smart people. Maybe Scalia could die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:That rationale was from someone claiming to be a reasonable gun owner who cares about gun rights but supports universal background checks on this forum, if anything made me go "ok, we're done here" about the gun issue that was probably it, it was just like there is no reasoning with someone who views this as a reasonable fear and reason to vote against universal background checks. Perhaps there would be less opposition to things like universal background checks if prominent anti-gun politicians didn't have a stated policy of incrementalism when it came to passing gun control laws! There's zero reason to play ball with the gun-grabbers as long as they want to use any legislation passed as a wedge in the door.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Oh man now there are two threads? gently caress Sorry pal, we have a constitution. And if I may quote from the second amendment to it: quote:Foreigners, being stupid idiots who like not dying, will try to take away your guns, you must shoot them. Shoot them good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:most of your critique is the idiot stuff i've already rebutted, but this is particularly precious as the reason that the study is outdated is because the nra, upset with what science says about gun violence, banned funding science on gun violence You haven't rebutted anything, you've only displayed you don't understand what you're talking about those criticisms are perfectly valid but you don't seem to understand the difference between correlation and causation. Amusingly this thread has made me wish my wife had actually taken up her professor's enticement to turn her paper on how lawyers are so loving horrible at statistics that its distorting the legal market to the point of tangible societal harm into a real deal study.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Perhaps there would be less opposition to things like universal background checks if prominent anti-gun politicians didn't have a stated policy of incrementalism when it came to passing gun control laws! My views are killing people, but the people who disagree with me aren't entirely satisfied with the compromises they propose. Better be an obstinate single-issue voter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:I'm comfortable with putting it out there because, as someone who is indifferent to the human cost of a bustling domestic firearms industry, I couldn't care less about the moral judgment of your average fedora-wearing goon. You shouldn't care what I think, you should care about the well being of the people you admitted the republicans are hurting directly. Admitting you're a bad person doesn't make it OK to be a bad person. You don't even have the excuse of being delusional.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:please tell me what a comf, co, condomding variable is, i've been curious for years and would very much like to know https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confounding
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Perhaps there would be less opposition to things like universal background checks if prominent anti-gun politicians didn't have a stated policy of incrementalism when it came to passing gun control laws! No, there wouldn't be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:On top of that, a crime studies from two decades ago are incredibly outdated. Homicide rates have more than halved since then, and homicide amongst African-Americans (the primary group represented here) has dropped dramatically since '92. No matter what way you slice it it's not exactly convincing proof to use in an argument now, over two decades later. I am not a maths expert or anything, but if homicide rates have dropped since 92, then unless suicide and accident rates also dropped by the same percentage, shouldn't we expect that it's even more likely now that you or a family member will die by your own gun than use it to stop a murderer?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Yes, because the NRA can magically enact a ban on studying gun violence. holy lawl you claim that the nra isn't behind no updates to the kellermann study and then admit it was that exact study that made you whiny shitlords throw a fit and ban anyone from repeating it, then complain its outdated do you even read your posts before you hit submit, even most gun nuts wouldn't have stuck their foot in their mouth that badly
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
The NRA can't pass laws therefore all laws that favor the NRA are a coincidence QED
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:holy lawl Some people can see the difference between the NRA (who did call attention to the gross waste) and Congress, who wrote a new budget to address it. You can't. (Wait, I thought we were talking about a ban on all gun science? poo poo, I should have invested in goal-post moving companies.)
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Perhaps there would be less opposition to things like universal background checks if prominent anti-gun politicians didn't have a stated policy of incrementalism when it came to passing gun control laws! thank you for your honesty see, this is why you can't play ball with paranoid lunatics: because somewhere, someone wants to ban guns, any gun restriction is a gun-grabber plot and must be opposed even if you can't articulate why trioka will literally oppose universal background checks because that would be "playing ball" with "gun-grabbers" even if he can't articulate a reason why they're bad. they might stop crazies? nope, nothing is in it personally for trioka, he's holding any and all reasonable regulation hostage because he's the last line of defense against tyranny
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Flowers For Algeria posted:Oh man now there are two threads? gently caress This is normal for our country. Why do you hate America?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The previously mentioned Colorado elections indicate otherwise. missed this post earlier and lmao what a pathetic turd thats "a democrat voting R based on guns" without even owning one
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Some people can see the difference between the NRA (who did call attention to the gross waste) and Congress, who wrote a new budget to address it. See, it's a gross waste because I don't like the implications of its findings. Also, where are the findings that disagree with me!?!?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:Some people can see the difference between the NRA (who did call attention to the gross waste) and Congress, who wrote a new budget to address it. there was no waste there were severely embarassing facts for ignorant manchildren whose pathetic self-image was punctured and who threw a temper-tantrum if the study had actually been a 'waste' then you'd want more studies because they'd show reality, but lawl
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:24
|
|
|
ikanreed posted:See, it's a gross waste because I don't like the implications of its findings. It was a gross waste because it was a terribly designed study. I wouldn't want millions spent on a study that makes universal claims about something when they purposefully select non-representational populations (right there is enough to toss the loving thing just by itself) and then furthermore ignore their own data to focus on a correlation effect orders of magnitude less than other factors, but gently caress it, its only taxpayer dollars right?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:It was a gross waste because it was a terribly designed study. I wouldn't want millions spent on a study that makes universal claims about something when they purposefully select non-representational populations (right there is enough to toss the loving thing just by itself) and then furthermore ignore their own data to focus on a correlation effect orders of magnitude less than other factors, but gently caress it, its only taxpayer dollars right? b-but the taxpayers!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Snowman Crossing posted:This is normal for our country. Why do you hate America? I love America! I'm sad that so many Americans have to needlessly die everyday for no reason!
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Perhaps there would be less opposition to things like universal background checks if prominent anti-gun politicians didn't have a stated policy of incrementalism when it came to passing gun control laws! So do you not know what the second amendment is or what any of the recent landmark gun law cases said or... Obama isn't coming to take your guns, that's unconstitutional, and it's not going to happen. Like what is the secret process here. We check to make sure every firearms sale includes a background check for a criminal record in all 50 states and then...what...Obama collects a secret list, declares martial law, and sends the army to your house. I mean maybe he is making that secret list but I bet he's not using background checks, I bet he's just got the NSA watching facebook for your tacticlol range photos and writing down the real names of all the gun nuts posting their sweet arsenal
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
Hey play nice you guys, try not to ad hominem each others dicks off. Gun-haters, I have a question. When will gun laws be in perfect equilibrium in your opinion? Like what laws need to get passed where you stop and say "whoa guys I think this is enough, we got it"? What are your victory conditions?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
LeJackal posted:It was a gross waste because it was a terribly designed study. I wouldn't want millions spent on a study that makes universal claims about something when they purposefully select non-representational populations (right there is enough to toss the loving thing just by itself) and then furthermore ignore their own data to focus on a correlation effect orders of magnitude less than other factors, but gently caress it, its only taxpayer dollars right? I definitely don't want to fund a study that collects better data tho, let's just say we did and that it agreed with my feelers
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:56 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:We check to make sure every firearms sale includes a background check for a criminal record in all 50 states and then...what... This is useless policy, in my opinion. Most of the people who legally buy guns then shoot at their wife, or commit suicide with them, or have it stolen from them, or accidentally shoot someone else with them, do not have a criminal record. Background checks would do nothing for the consequences of mass gun ownership.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 22:31
|
|