warpedskydiver 0 #126 December 29, 2007 I just wish you had bought a belt fed machinegun, that's all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #127 December 29, 2007 QuoteQuote This one, you could prove. You logic is as faulty as your statistical knowledge. *PA ignored* In regards to Postulate 4, are you saying that there is a physical difference between a gun used in crime and any other gun? That is why I said that it *COULD* be possible to prove postulate 4. You are the one that supported the AMA's (or whatever medical org it was) contention that guns were "an epidemic". An epidemic has to satisfy Koch's postulates....so let's see you provide the proof. I see you falling back to your usual tactic of attacking the poster and not the data, as usual when you can't rebut the post....Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #128 December 29, 2007 Quote I just wish you had bought a belt fed machinegun, that's all. My birthday is in February... Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #129 December 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote This one, you could prove. You logic is as faulty as your statistical knowledge. *PA ignored* In regards to Postulate 4, are you saying that there is a physical difference between a gun used in crime and any other gun? That is why I said that it *COULD* be possible to prove postulate 4. You are the one that supported the AMA's (or whatever medical org it was) contention that guns were "an epidemic". An epidemic has to satisfy Koch's postulates....so let's see you provide the proof. I see you falling back to your usual tactic of attacking the poster and not the data, as usual when you can't rebut the post.... I have posted links to peer-reviewed studies conducted using proper methodology, and still you continue to dispute them using bogus arguments. If you have a problem with their findings, write a rebuttal to the folks at Harvard, or publish your own ideas in a peer-reviewed journal and then you may be taken seriously. The FACTS are clear, whether you like them or not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #130 December 29, 2007 QuoteI have posted links to peer-reviewed studies conducted using proper methodology, and still you continue to dispute them using bogus arguments. Rather like complaining about "DC is not a state" in regards to the UCR data instead of rebutting the meaning of the post, perhaps? QuoteIf you have a problem with their findings, write a rebuttal to the folks at Harvard, or publish your own ideas in a peer-reviewed journal and then you may be taken seriously. See response above. QuoteThe FACTS are clear, whether you like them or not. Yes, that's true. It's a FACT that guns are NOT an epidemic, regardless of what the AMA says.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #131 December 29, 2007 Ya and you ignore peer reviewed authors you disagree with. Make you your mind please "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #132 December 29, 2007 QuoteQuote QuoteThe FACTS are clear, whether you like them or not. Yes, that's true. It's a FACT that guns are NOT an epidemic, regardless of what the AMA says. In addition to your letter to Harvard, why don't you write to the AMA as well, to put them right. Obviously you know far better than anyone who's actually studied the PROBLEM.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #133 December 29, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote The FACTS are clear, whether you like them or not. Yes, that's true. It's a FACT that guns are NOT an epidemic, regardless of what the AMA says. In addition to your letter to Harvard, why don't you write to the AMA as well, to put them right. Obviously you know far better than anyone who's actually studied the PROBLEM. And you condem those that REALLY studied the stats and then you post this"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #134 December 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote QuoteThe FACTS are clear, whether you like them or not. Yes, that's true. It's a FACT that guns are NOT an epidemic, regardless of what the AMA says. In addition to your letter to Harvard, why don't you write to the AMA as well, to put them right. Obviously you know far better than anyone who's actually studied the PROBLEM. I'm still waiting for those Koch postulate proofs...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #135 December 29, 2007 Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #136 December 29, 2007 Quote Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE. Bersa Thunder .380. (It's a Walther PPK clone.)Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #137 December 29, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE. Bersa Thunder .380. (It's a Walther PPK clone.) I'm debating the 416 vs. the 338 right now. Depends on what kind of animal I want to kill.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #138 January 5, 2008 Since it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings: State Rate / 100k Wyoming 1.87 Alaska 6.03 Montana 2.27 South Dakota 2.43 West Virginia 4.13 Mississippi 11.42 Idaho 2.46 Arkansas 10.46 Alabama 13.32 Now, lets' look at the bottom 10 - the states with the fewest guns Florida 7.60 Maryland 26.33 California 6.88 Illinois 14.31 New York 6.00 Connecticut 3.94 Rhode Island 2.54 Massachusetts 3.06 New Jersey 5.00 Hawaii 1.86 DC 29.06 Wow... looks like the simple fact of owning a gun has not a damn bit to do with murders... who woulda thunk it? Besides pro-2nd amendment folks, I mean. And yes, Professor... I listed DC. Since it wasn't in your list, I assigned it the lowest gun ownership number, with all those bans and whatnot. Please don't confuse Washington *city* with the Federal District. Cities don't get representatives in Congress, nor do they have a "state code" for postal service. And check out those number for MARYLAND....wow!! Must be all those MARYLAND guns causing crime in DC, eh, Professor? Virginia's murder rate is 8.92/100k, btw... looks like your "Virginia guns cause DC (and evidently Maryland?) crime" idea is pretty dead in the water.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #139 January 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE. Bersa Thunder .380. (It's a Walther PPK clone.) I'm debating the 416 vs. the 338 right now. Depends on what kind of animal I want to kill. 4.16 Barret huh ahhha huh "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #140 January 6, 2008 Quote Since it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings:................. Interesting. Could you post a link to the data? Also, have you ever seen stats on overall US gun sales since the 1968 GCA? I assume there are no records prior to that. Still looking at the graph we discussed earlier. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #141 January 7, 2008 QuoteQuote Since it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings:................. Interesting. Could you post a link to the data? Also, have you ever seen stats on overall US gun sales since the 1968 GCA? I assume there are no records prior to that. Still looking at the graph we discussed earlier. Data was from the '06 UCR stats - a little work in excel provided the rates/100k.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #142 January 7, 2008 QuoteSince it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings: State Rate / 100k Wyoming 1.87 Alaska 6.03 Montana 2.27 South Dakota 2.43 West Virginia 4.13 Mississippi 11.42 Idaho 2.46 Arkansas 10.46 Alabama 13.32 Now, lets' look at the bottom 10 - the states with the fewest guns Florida 7.60 Maryland 26.33 California 6.88 Illinois 14.31 New York 6.00 Connecticut 3.94 Rhode Island 2.54 Massachusetts 3.06 New Jersey 5.00 Hawaii 1.86 DC 29.06 Wow... looks like the simple fact of owning a gun has not a damn bit to do with murders... who woulda thunk it? Besides pro-2nd amendment folks, I mean. And yes, Professor... I listed DC. Since it wasn't in your list, I assigned it the lowest gun ownership number, with all those bans and whatnot. Please don't confuse Washington *city* with the Federal District. Cities don't get representatives in Congress, nor do they have a "state code" for postal service. And check out those number for MARYLAND....wow!! Must be all those MARYLAND guns causing crime in DC, eh, Professor? Virginia's murder rate is 8.92/100k, btw... looks like your "Virginia guns cause DC (and evidently Maryland?) crime" idea is pretty dead in the water. Table 5 of the FBI UCR already lists rates per 100,000, so I'm unclear why you felt the need to recalculate it (and get it wrong) yourself. The FBI list Maryland at 9.7, not 26.33, and it lists Illinois at 6.1, not 14.31. Since your "top 10" table only contains 9 states, maybe we can conclude that your math needs some work. Take a look at the work of some people that actually know what they're doing: www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447364 www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/92/12/1988.pdf... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #143 January 7, 2008 The numbers in table 5 don't mesh with table 8, which is where I got the information I posted from - I wonder why the discrepancy between the two? >> recalculate (and get it wrong) Really, now.... perhaps you should check my work against the table I got the information FROM, Professor. Nice to know you still attack the messenger when you can't attack the fact, however. But, since you mention it.... *revised with table 5 data* The top 10 'murder states' per Professor Kallend's infallible Harvard study: Wyoming 1.7/100k Alaska 5.4/100k Montana 1.8/100k South Dakota 1.2/100k West Virginia 4.1/100k Mississippi 7.7/100k Idaho 2.5/100k Arkansas 7.3/100k Alabama 8.3/100k North Dakota 1.3/100k And, the top ten murder free paradises (actually 11) Florida 6.2/100k Maryland 9.7/100k California 6.8/100k Illinois 6.1/100k New York 4.8/100k Connecticut 3.1/100k Rhode Island 2.6/100k Massachusetts 2.9/100k New Jersey 4.9/100k Hawaii 1.6/100k DC 29.1/100k Virginia, BTW, has a rate of 5.2/100k. "Virginia guns = DC crime"... bullshit. BUT, back to the stats - looks like there's highs and lows on both ends of the scale - again proving your assertion that "more gun ownership = more murders" is false. >>people who know what they are doing<< And I should take the word of doctors over statisticians and criminologists, why? I still don't see anything showing how guns fit the Koch postulates yet, either...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #144 January 7, 2008 I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see why YOU got the incorrect answer from Table 8.If you actually READ the articles you will see where you have made your OTHER errors (besides claiming 9 = 10). I think you also told us some months ago that you never took a course on statistics, yet you claim to debunk the works of professionals.. Youre losing a lot of credibilty on this topic, Mike. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #145 January 7, 2008 By all mean, attack the poster when you can't attack the data. I'll take the hit for leaving one off when I made the list (omg, the world is ending!). The table 5 data actually results in lower numbers across the board, for whatever reason. I leave it to the Professor to run the numbers himself and see if what I posted was false with the data I was using. You'll find it wasn't. >>debunk the work of professionals.<< You debunk the work of statisticians and criminologists in favor of doctors, since their views support yours. You don't have much room to talk, there. None of the above refutes the FACT that your assertions that "more guns equal more murders" is false. Do you want to actually address THAT, or just continue to snipe at me for daring to show you were in error?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #146 January 8, 2008 Have you carefully read the study Kallend refers to? It's just a bunch of statistical game-playing and concludes with "Our study did not provide information about causation....this result does not rule out the possibility that reverse causation or a noncausal explanation accounts for the association between rates of firearm ownership and homicide. It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition. Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve this issue...." If that's the best he can come up with, it's no wonder he attacks you personally for making a minor error..... -------------------- If gun ownership drives murder rates, shouldn't the rates generally increase over time? Surely they wouldn't decrease in a statistically significant manner even as more and more guns are purchased/owned over time. But murder rates between 1950 and 2005 have increased/decreased by more than a factor of two, with the current (2005) rate being exactly equal to the rate in 1966 (5.6 vs. 5.6). The maximum rate was in 1980 (10.7). While there were certainly more guns in the US in 1980 than in 1966, it's pretty hard to believe that there were less guns in 2005 than in 1980. The rate in 1933 was nearly 60% higher than the current rate (9.7 vs. 5.6). The current murder rate is even lower than the 1913 rate (5.6 vs. 6.1). Gun ownership does not drive murder rates.* *NOTE: No "...exponentiating (Beta) coefficients in the negative binomial regressions..", questionable telephone surveys, proxies, "Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(s)", breakdown of victims by age, etc., were used in the above analysis, so it's probably wrong "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #147 January 8, 2008 I didn't see that part of it...I did go back and find the post and scan through it, though. Looked like a rehash of Kellerman's work , to be honest. Oh, I agree it's not the guns, nor the availability of them in general. I think it boils down more to availability of helpless victims than anything else. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #148 January 8, 2008 QuoteOh, I agree it's not the guns, nor the availability of them in general. I think it boils down more to availability of helpless victims than anything else. The "helpless victim" argument is too easily shot down. I guess my point was that there is really little difference between today's murder rate and that of 40, 60, even 100 years ago. Our murder rate may be high compared with other countries, but if no one gave a F*&% in 1911, why should we now? Here's the data from 1900 to 2002: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #149 January 8, 2008 QuoteThe "helpless victim" argument is too easily shot down Oh, I'm not so sure - look at the various shootings that have happened in recent memory - all ended in one (or combinations of) the following scenarios. Lack of disarmed victims Intervention by armed person Imminent arrival of armed persons (cops) I agree with your earlier reasoning that the increasing number of guns in private hands does NOT correlate with increasing numbers of murders. Quoteno one gave a F*&% in 1911, why should we now? Duh....because guns are BAD, m'kay??? They can't ever tell you HOW the guns force the criminals to commit those crimes...they're just BAD and should be destroyed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 6 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
rushmc 23 #133 December 29, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote The FACTS are clear, whether you like them or not. Yes, that's true. It's a FACT that guns are NOT an epidemic, regardless of what the AMA says. In addition to your letter to Harvard, why don't you write to the AMA as well, to put them right. Obviously you know far better than anyone who's actually studied the PROBLEM. And you condem those that REALLY studied the stats and then you post this"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #134 December 29, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuote QuoteThe FACTS are clear, whether you like them or not. Yes, that's true. It's a FACT that guns are NOT an epidemic, regardless of what the AMA says. In addition to your letter to Harvard, why don't you write to the AMA as well, to put them right. Obviously you know far better than anyone who's actually studied the PROBLEM. I'm still waiting for those Koch postulate proofs...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #135 December 29, 2007 Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ExAFO 0 #136 December 29, 2007 Quote Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE. Bersa Thunder .380. (It's a Walther PPK clone.)Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites akarunway 1 #137 December 29, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE. Bersa Thunder .380. (It's a Walther PPK clone.) I'm debating the 416 vs. the 338 right now. Depends on what kind of animal I want to kill.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #138 January 5, 2008 Since it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings: State Rate / 100k Wyoming 1.87 Alaska 6.03 Montana 2.27 South Dakota 2.43 West Virginia 4.13 Mississippi 11.42 Idaho 2.46 Arkansas 10.46 Alabama 13.32 Now, lets' look at the bottom 10 - the states with the fewest guns Florida 7.60 Maryland 26.33 California 6.88 Illinois 14.31 New York 6.00 Connecticut 3.94 Rhode Island 2.54 Massachusetts 3.06 New Jersey 5.00 Hawaii 1.86 DC 29.06 Wow... looks like the simple fact of owning a gun has not a damn bit to do with murders... who woulda thunk it? Besides pro-2nd amendment folks, I mean. And yes, Professor... I listed DC. Since it wasn't in your list, I assigned it the lowest gun ownership number, with all those bans and whatnot. Please don't confuse Washington *city* with the Federal District. Cities don't get representatives in Congress, nor do they have a "state code" for postal service. And check out those number for MARYLAND....wow!! Must be all those MARYLAND guns causing crime in DC, eh, Professor? Virginia's murder rate is 8.92/100k, btw... looks like your "Virginia guns cause DC (and evidently Maryland?) crime" idea is pretty dead in the water.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rushmc 23 #139 January 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE. Bersa Thunder .380. (It's a Walther PPK clone.) I'm debating the 416 vs. the 338 right now. Depends on what kind of animal I want to kill. 4.16 Barret huh ahhha huh "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #140 January 6, 2008 Quote Since it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings:................. Interesting. Could you post a link to the data? Also, have you ever seen stats on overall US gun sales since the 1968 GCA? I assume there are no records prior to that. Still looking at the graph we discussed earlier. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #141 January 7, 2008 QuoteQuote Since it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings:................. Interesting. Could you post a link to the data? Also, have you ever seen stats on overall US gun sales since the 1968 GCA? I assume there are no records prior to that. Still looking at the graph we discussed earlier. Data was from the '06 UCR stats - a little work in excel provided the rates/100k.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #142 January 7, 2008 QuoteSince it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings: State Rate / 100k Wyoming 1.87 Alaska 6.03 Montana 2.27 South Dakota 2.43 West Virginia 4.13 Mississippi 11.42 Idaho 2.46 Arkansas 10.46 Alabama 13.32 Now, lets' look at the bottom 10 - the states with the fewest guns Florida 7.60 Maryland 26.33 California 6.88 Illinois 14.31 New York 6.00 Connecticut 3.94 Rhode Island 2.54 Massachusetts 3.06 New Jersey 5.00 Hawaii 1.86 DC 29.06 Wow... looks like the simple fact of owning a gun has not a damn bit to do with murders... who woulda thunk it? Besides pro-2nd amendment folks, I mean. And yes, Professor... I listed DC. Since it wasn't in your list, I assigned it the lowest gun ownership number, with all those bans and whatnot. Please don't confuse Washington *city* with the Federal District. Cities don't get representatives in Congress, nor do they have a "state code" for postal service. And check out those number for MARYLAND....wow!! Must be all those MARYLAND guns causing crime in DC, eh, Professor? Virginia's murder rate is 8.92/100k, btw... looks like your "Virginia guns cause DC (and evidently Maryland?) crime" idea is pretty dead in the water. Table 5 of the FBI UCR already lists rates per 100,000, so I'm unclear why you felt the need to recalculate it (and get it wrong) yourself. The FBI list Maryland at 9.7, not 26.33, and it lists Illinois at 6.1, not 14.31. Since your "top 10" table only contains 9 states, maybe we can conclude that your math needs some work. Take a look at the work of some people that actually know what they're doing: www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447364 www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/92/12/1988.pdf... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #143 January 7, 2008 The numbers in table 5 don't mesh with table 8, which is where I got the information I posted from - I wonder why the discrepancy between the two? >> recalculate (and get it wrong) Really, now.... perhaps you should check my work against the table I got the information FROM, Professor. Nice to know you still attack the messenger when you can't attack the fact, however. But, since you mention it.... *revised with table 5 data* The top 10 'murder states' per Professor Kallend's infallible Harvard study: Wyoming 1.7/100k Alaska 5.4/100k Montana 1.8/100k South Dakota 1.2/100k West Virginia 4.1/100k Mississippi 7.7/100k Idaho 2.5/100k Arkansas 7.3/100k Alabama 8.3/100k North Dakota 1.3/100k And, the top ten murder free paradises (actually 11) Florida 6.2/100k Maryland 9.7/100k California 6.8/100k Illinois 6.1/100k New York 4.8/100k Connecticut 3.1/100k Rhode Island 2.6/100k Massachusetts 2.9/100k New Jersey 4.9/100k Hawaii 1.6/100k DC 29.1/100k Virginia, BTW, has a rate of 5.2/100k. "Virginia guns = DC crime"... bullshit. BUT, back to the stats - looks like there's highs and lows on both ends of the scale - again proving your assertion that "more gun ownership = more murders" is false. >>people who know what they are doing<< And I should take the word of doctors over statisticians and criminologists, why? I still don't see anything showing how guns fit the Koch postulates yet, either...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,107 #144 January 7, 2008 I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see why YOU got the incorrect answer from Table 8.If you actually READ the articles you will see where you have made your OTHER errors (besides claiming 9 = 10). I think you also told us some months ago that you never took a course on statistics, yet you claim to debunk the works of professionals.. Youre losing a lot of credibilty on this topic, Mike. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #145 January 7, 2008 By all mean, attack the poster when you can't attack the data. I'll take the hit for leaving one off when I made the list (omg, the world is ending!). The table 5 data actually results in lower numbers across the board, for whatever reason. I leave it to the Professor to run the numbers himself and see if what I posted was false with the data I was using. You'll find it wasn't. >>debunk the work of professionals.<< You debunk the work of statisticians and criminologists in favor of doctors, since their views support yours. You don't have much room to talk, there. None of the above refutes the FACT that your assertions that "more guns equal more murders" is false. Do you want to actually address THAT, or just continue to snipe at me for daring to show you were in error?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #146 January 8, 2008 Have you carefully read the study Kallend refers to? It's just a bunch of statistical game-playing and concludes with "Our study did not provide information about causation....this result does not rule out the possibility that reverse causation or a noncausal explanation accounts for the association between rates of firearm ownership and homicide. It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition. Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve this issue...." If that's the best he can come up with, it's no wonder he attacks you personally for making a minor error..... -------------------- If gun ownership drives murder rates, shouldn't the rates generally increase over time? Surely they wouldn't decrease in a statistically significant manner even as more and more guns are purchased/owned over time. But murder rates between 1950 and 2005 have increased/decreased by more than a factor of two, with the current (2005) rate being exactly equal to the rate in 1966 (5.6 vs. 5.6). The maximum rate was in 1980 (10.7). While there were certainly more guns in the US in 1980 than in 1966, it's pretty hard to believe that there were less guns in 2005 than in 1980. The rate in 1933 was nearly 60% higher than the current rate (9.7 vs. 5.6). The current murder rate is even lower than the 1913 rate (5.6 vs. 6.1). Gun ownership does not drive murder rates.* *NOTE: No "...exponentiating (Beta) coefficients in the negative binomial regressions..", questionable telephone surveys, proxies, "Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(s)", breakdown of victims by age, etc., were used in the above analysis, so it's probably wrong "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #147 January 8, 2008 I didn't see that part of it...I did go back and find the post and scan through it, though. Looked like a rehash of Kellerman's work , to be honest. Oh, I agree it's not the guns, nor the availability of them in general. I think it boils down more to availability of helpless victims than anything else. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites 1969912 0 #148 January 8, 2008 QuoteOh, I agree it's not the guns, nor the availability of them in general. I think it boils down more to availability of helpless victims than anything else. The "helpless victim" argument is too easily shot down. I guess my point was that there is really little difference between today's murder rate and that of 40, 60, even 100 years ago. Our murder rate may be high compared with other countries, but if no one gave a F*&% in 1911, why should we now? Here's the data from 1900 to 2002: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mnealtx 0 #149 January 8, 2008 QuoteThe "helpless victim" argument is too easily shot down Oh, I'm not so sure - look at the various shootings that have happened in recent memory - all ended in one (or combinations of) the following scenarios. Lack of disarmed victims Intervention by armed person Imminent arrival of armed persons (cops) I agree with your earlier reasoning that the increasing number of guns in private hands does NOT correlate with increasing numbers of murders. Quoteno one gave a F*&% in 1911, why should we now? Duh....because guns are BAD, m'kay??? They can't ever tell you HOW the guns force the criminals to commit those crimes...they're just BAD and should be destroyed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Page 6 of 6 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
akarunway 1 #135 December 29, 2007 Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ExAFO 0 #136 December 29, 2007 Quote Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE. Bersa Thunder .380. (It's a Walther PPK clone.)Illinois needs a CCW Law. NOW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
akarunway 1 #137 December 29, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE. Bersa Thunder .380. (It's a Walther PPK clone.) I'm debating the 416 vs. the 338 right now. Depends on what kind of animal I want to kill.I hold it true, whate'er befall; I feel it, when I sorrow most; 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #138 January 5, 2008 Since it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings: State Rate / 100k Wyoming 1.87 Alaska 6.03 Montana 2.27 South Dakota 2.43 West Virginia 4.13 Mississippi 11.42 Idaho 2.46 Arkansas 10.46 Alabama 13.32 Now, lets' look at the bottom 10 - the states with the fewest guns Florida 7.60 Maryland 26.33 California 6.88 Illinois 14.31 New York 6.00 Connecticut 3.94 Rhode Island 2.54 Massachusetts 3.06 New Jersey 5.00 Hawaii 1.86 DC 29.06 Wow... looks like the simple fact of owning a gun has not a damn bit to do with murders... who woulda thunk it? Besides pro-2nd amendment folks, I mean. And yes, Professor... I listed DC. Since it wasn't in your list, I assigned it the lowest gun ownership number, with all those bans and whatnot. Please don't confuse Washington *city* with the Federal District. Cities don't get representatives in Congress, nor do they have a "state code" for postal service. And check out those number for MARYLAND....wow!! Must be all those MARYLAND guns causing crime in DC, eh, Professor? Virginia's murder rate is 8.92/100k, btw... looks like your "Virginia guns cause DC (and evidently Maryland?) crime" idea is pretty dead in the water.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #139 January 5, 2008 Quote Quote Quote Quote Pardon the cross-post, but... I just bought a gun today. Deal with that. What'd ya get. I want that 416 Barret but it's EXPENSIVE. Bersa Thunder .380. (It's a Walther PPK clone.) I'm debating the 416 vs. the 338 right now. Depends on what kind of animal I want to kill. 4.16 Barret huh ahhha huh "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #140 January 6, 2008 Quote Since it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings:................. Interesting. Could you post a link to the data? Also, have you ever seen stats on overall US gun sales since the 1968 GCA? I assume there are no records prior to that. Still looking at the graph we discussed earlier. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #141 January 7, 2008 QuoteQuote Since it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings:................. Interesting. Could you post a link to the data? Also, have you ever seen stats on overall US gun sales since the 1968 GCA? I assume there are no records prior to that. Still looking at the graph we discussed earlier. Data was from the '06 UCR stats - a little work in excel provided the rates/100k.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #142 January 7, 2008 QuoteSince it came up again in the other thread, I wanted to revisit this: Here's the top 10 gun-owning states and their homicide rankings: State Rate / 100k Wyoming 1.87 Alaska 6.03 Montana 2.27 South Dakota 2.43 West Virginia 4.13 Mississippi 11.42 Idaho 2.46 Arkansas 10.46 Alabama 13.32 Now, lets' look at the bottom 10 - the states with the fewest guns Florida 7.60 Maryland 26.33 California 6.88 Illinois 14.31 New York 6.00 Connecticut 3.94 Rhode Island 2.54 Massachusetts 3.06 New Jersey 5.00 Hawaii 1.86 DC 29.06 Wow... looks like the simple fact of owning a gun has not a damn bit to do with murders... who woulda thunk it? Besides pro-2nd amendment folks, I mean. And yes, Professor... I listed DC. Since it wasn't in your list, I assigned it the lowest gun ownership number, with all those bans and whatnot. Please don't confuse Washington *city* with the Federal District. Cities don't get representatives in Congress, nor do they have a "state code" for postal service. And check out those number for MARYLAND....wow!! Must be all those MARYLAND guns causing crime in DC, eh, Professor? Virginia's murder rate is 8.92/100k, btw... looks like your "Virginia guns cause DC (and evidently Maryland?) crime" idea is pretty dead in the water. Table 5 of the FBI UCR already lists rates per 100,000, so I'm unclear why you felt the need to recalculate it (and get it wrong) yourself. The FBI list Maryland at 9.7, not 26.33, and it lists Illinois at 6.1, not 14.31. Since your "top 10" table only contains 9 states, maybe we can conclude that your math needs some work. Take a look at the work of some people that actually know what they're doing: www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1447364 www.ajph.org/cgi/reprint/92/12/1988.pdf... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #143 January 7, 2008 The numbers in table 5 don't mesh with table 8, which is where I got the information I posted from - I wonder why the discrepancy between the two? >> recalculate (and get it wrong) Really, now.... perhaps you should check my work against the table I got the information FROM, Professor. Nice to know you still attack the messenger when you can't attack the fact, however. But, since you mention it.... *revised with table 5 data* The top 10 'murder states' per Professor Kallend's infallible Harvard study: Wyoming 1.7/100k Alaska 5.4/100k Montana 1.8/100k South Dakota 1.2/100k West Virginia 4.1/100k Mississippi 7.7/100k Idaho 2.5/100k Arkansas 7.3/100k Alabama 8.3/100k North Dakota 1.3/100k And, the top ten murder free paradises (actually 11) Florida 6.2/100k Maryland 9.7/100k California 6.8/100k Illinois 6.1/100k New York 4.8/100k Connecticut 3.1/100k Rhode Island 2.6/100k Massachusetts 2.9/100k New Jersey 4.9/100k Hawaii 1.6/100k DC 29.1/100k Virginia, BTW, has a rate of 5.2/100k. "Virginia guns = DC crime"... bullshit. BUT, back to the stats - looks like there's highs and lows on both ends of the scale - again proving your assertion that "more gun ownership = more murders" is false. >>people who know what they are doing<< And I should take the word of doctors over statisticians and criminologists, why? I still don't see anything showing how guns fit the Koch postulates yet, either...Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,107 #144 January 7, 2008 I leave it as an exercise for the reader to see why YOU got the incorrect answer from Table 8.If you actually READ the articles you will see where you have made your OTHER errors (besides claiming 9 = 10). I think you also told us some months ago that you never took a course on statistics, yet you claim to debunk the works of professionals.. Youre losing a lot of credibilty on this topic, Mike. ... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #145 January 7, 2008 By all mean, attack the poster when you can't attack the data. I'll take the hit for leaving one off when I made the list (omg, the world is ending!). The table 5 data actually results in lower numbers across the board, for whatever reason. I leave it to the Professor to run the numbers himself and see if what I posted was false with the data I was using. You'll find it wasn't. >>debunk the work of professionals.<< You debunk the work of statisticians and criminologists in favor of doctors, since their views support yours. You don't have much room to talk, there. None of the above refutes the FACT that your assertions that "more guns equal more murders" is false. Do you want to actually address THAT, or just continue to snipe at me for daring to show you were in error?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #146 January 8, 2008 Have you carefully read the study Kallend refers to? It's just a bunch of statistical game-playing and concludes with "Our study did not provide information about causation....this result does not rule out the possibility that reverse causation or a noncausal explanation accounts for the association between rates of firearm ownership and homicide. It is possible, for example, that locally elevated homicide rates may have led to increased local gun acquisition. Unfortunately, we were unable to resolve this issue...." If that's the best he can come up with, it's no wonder he attacks you personally for making a minor error..... -------------------- If gun ownership drives murder rates, shouldn't the rates generally increase over time? Surely they wouldn't decrease in a statistically significant manner even as more and more guns are purchased/owned over time. But murder rates between 1950 and 2005 have increased/decreased by more than a factor of two, with the current (2005) rate being exactly equal to the rate in 1966 (5.6 vs. 5.6). The maximum rate was in 1980 (10.7). While there were certainly more guns in the US in 1980 than in 1966, it's pretty hard to believe that there were less guns in 2005 than in 1980. The rate in 1933 was nearly 60% higher than the current rate (9.7 vs. 5.6). The current murder rate is even lower than the 1913 rate (5.6 vs. 6.1). Gun ownership does not drive murder rates.* *NOTE: No "...exponentiating (Beta) coefficients in the negative binomial regressions..", questionable telephone surveys, proxies, "Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System(s)", breakdown of victims by age, etc., were used in the above analysis, so it's probably wrong "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #147 January 8, 2008 I didn't see that part of it...I did go back and find the post and scan through it, though. Looked like a rehash of Kellerman's work , to be honest. Oh, I agree it's not the guns, nor the availability of them in general. I think it boils down more to availability of helpless victims than anything else. Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #148 January 8, 2008 QuoteOh, I agree it's not the guns, nor the availability of them in general. I think it boils down more to availability of helpless victims than anything else. The "helpless victim" argument is too easily shot down. I guess my point was that there is really little difference between today's murder rate and that of 40, 60, even 100 years ago. Our murder rate may be high compared with other countries, but if no one gave a F*&% in 1911, why should we now? Here's the data from 1900 to 2002: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/tables/hmrttab.htm "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #149 January 8, 2008 QuoteThe "helpless victim" argument is too easily shot down Oh, I'm not so sure - look at the various shootings that have happened in recent memory - all ended in one (or combinations of) the following scenarios. Lack of disarmed victims Intervention by armed person Imminent arrival of armed persons (cops) I agree with your earlier reasoning that the increasing number of guns in private hands does NOT correlate with increasing numbers of murders. Quoteno one gave a F*&% in 1911, why should we now? Duh....because guns are BAD, m'kay??? They can't ever tell you HOW the guns force the criminals to commit those crimes...they're just BAD and should be destroyed.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
