A Sane Discussion About Gun Violence

[rogue06]

There were some. Loner, neo-Nazi, wore trench coats even when a coat wasn't necessary. He apparently had a custom made T-shirt reading, 'born to kill'; he posted a picture of it to FB a couple weeks ago.

From what I heard his "trench coat" (some news services called it a "duster" -- not sure of the difference) had a hammer and sickle on it. Not something you generally associate with being a neo-Nazi. It also had a Japanese Rising Sun emblem and a Cthulhu insignia and apparently he had what has been described as being a bisexual pride pin or symbol on the cap he often wore.

The so-called "Nazi medal" on it is a Iron Cross and while German isn't "Nazi" but rather was established back in 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars by Wilhelm III of Prussia and was adopted by Germany in the 1870s. On Facebook he said he picked it because it symbolized bravery (it was typically awarded for bravery in battle) not because of any supposed Nazi-connection (he gave similar reasons for the other insignia on his jacket).

[One Bad Pig]

From what I heard his "trench coat" (some news services called it a "duster" -- not sure of the difference) had a hammer and sickle on it. Not something you generally associate with being a neo-Nazi. It also had a Japanese Rising Sun emblem and a Cthulhu insignia and apparently he had what has been described as being a bisexual pride pin or symbol on the cap he often wore.

The so-called "Nazi medal" on it is a Iron Cross and while German isn't "Nazi" but rather was established back in 1813 during the Napoleonic Wars by Wilhelm III of Prussia and was adopted by Germany in the 1870s. On Facebook he said he picked it because it symbolized bravery (it was typically awarded for bravery in battle) not because of any supposed Nazi-connection (he gave similar reasons for the other insignia on his jacket).

I find it much easier to believe that he wasn't a true neo-Nazi - he's Greek, after all - but he seems to like some neo-Nazi things.

[Zymologist]

This little ditty has been posted and responded to so many times, it seems rather pointless to do it again, especially since you've already declared any response "hand waving." However my response is the same one I've always given:

Correlation is not causation. Much else has changed since 1994 that a drop in gun homicide rates can be attributed to. The fact that there is no correlation here is also indicated by the fact that almost all of that growth in guns/person is attributed to the accelerated purchase by 3% of the population, where the gun/person number has soared to 16/individual, lifting the average for everyone as a result. There has been almost no growth for the remaining 97%.

I know the NRA loves this little diagram - but it says nothing.

This has also been pointed out before: that the point in bringing up this graph isn't to argue that the increase in gun ownership has led to the reduction in gun violence, but that it serves as evidence that more guns =/= more gun violence.

[Roy]

I think that a stronger argument can be made that violent movies, TV programs and video games provide "a map" to violence than what Sparko said.

I've never heard of anyone achieving a mass-killing with a DVD.

[rogue06]

I've never heard of anyone achieving a mass-killing with a DVD.

You were talking about providing "maps"

[Charles]

I'm not surprised that you wouldn't think so but keep in mind that words can be far more deadly than any firearm. As Cardinal Richelieu is made to say in Bulwer-Lytton's historical play about him, "The pen is mightier than the sword." This can be demonstrated by what a certain European politician was able to carry out in the middle of the last century largely as a result of a few speeches and a book.

I would think a fair description would include quite a lot more than "a few speeches and a book". Did people have to buy into his ideas? Did they have to shout at people because of their race, faith or sexual orientation, to deprive them of their dignity, to put them on trains to concentration camps, to humiliate, torture and kill them? I certainly hope you realise that there is far more to this than speeches and books? Quite many wrong human actions... If not you have a very limited understanding of what all the human beings involved in this machinery of killing should have been held accountable for.

Apart from that I would say that among nazi Germany's many problems one of them was the problem that it certainly did not allow for much free speech from those who opposed nazism.

[Charles]

So if you think heavily regulating the possession of firearms in the name of public safety is justified then you are exhibiting a double standard.

I fail to see how that follows. Those who support free speech often support it due to their impression that it is the best way to oppose ideas that we disagree with.

[Jedidiah]

I would think a fair description would include quite a lot more than "a few speeches and a book". Did people have to buy into his ideas? Did they have to shout at people because of their race, faith or sexual orientation, to deprive them of their dignity, to put them on trains to concentration camps, to humiliate, torture and kill them? I certainly hope you realise that there is far more to this than speeches and books? Quite many wrong human actions... If not you have a very limited understanding of what all the human beings involved in this machinery of killing should have been held accountable for.

Apart from that I would say that among nazi Germany's many problems one of them was the problem that it certainly did not allow for much free speech from those who opposed nazism.

Did the movement start right off with concentration camps? No it took a lot to work up to those.

[carpedm9587]

This has also been pointed out before: that the point in bringing up this graph isn't to argue that the increase in gun ownership has led to the reduction in gun violence, but that it serves as evidence that more guns =/= more gun violence.

And it does not make THAT case either. The data you are missing that would support this claim is what the gun violence would be if the only variable that changed is gun ownership. The graph shows that gun violence went from 7.0/100K ro 3.6/100K while gun ownership went from .94/100K to 1.45/100K. However, there were multiple variables at play (changes in laws, in law enforcement, social distribution, use of camera phones, etc.). The data does not isolate for any of these factors. So you have no way of knowing, if all of these factors were isolated from the data, if the net change in violence due to increased gun ownership would have risen or fallen. For all you know, the factors suppressing gun violence would have suppressed them to less then 1/100K, but the increase in gun ownership kept it inflated at 3.6/100K. Likewise, you cannot know if the other factors suppressing gun violence only suppressed it by 1/100K to 6/100K and the rest came from increase in private gun ownership.

All of which says: the chart is useless. It's just BAD use of statistics to make a claim that cannot be substantiated or refuted. The people who use it know this, which is why it keeps getting used. Statisticians laugh when they see it because it's such BAD use of data, but the lay person keeps slinging it around as if they are actually saying something. And because it scores points and most people don't know how to point out it's meaninglessness - it keeps getting slung around.

After all - we just need to dismiss the statistical analysis as "hand-waving" and we get to thump the NRA, the gun lobby, and the gun rights advocates on the back for a job well done, when all they are really being is dishonest. Either that, or they are really bad at statistical analysis.

[carpedm9587]

I'm not surprised that you wouldn't think so but keep in mind that words can be far more deadly than any firearm. As Cardinal Richelieu is made to say in Bulwer-Lytton's historical play about him, "The pen is mightier than the sword." This can be demonstrated by what a certain European politician was able to carry out in the middle of the last century largely as a result of a few speeches and a book.

So if you think heavily regulating the possession of firearms in the name of public safety is justified then you are exhibiting a double standard.

No

[Zymologist]

And it does not make THAT case either. The data you are missing that would support this claim is what the gun violence would be if the only variable that changed is gun ownership. The graph shows that gun violence went from 7.0/100K ro 3.6/100K while gun ownership went from .94/100K to 1.45/100K. However, there were multiple variables at play (changes in laws, in law enforcement, social distribution, use of camera phones, etc.). The data does not isolate for any of these factors. So you have no way of knowing, if all of these factors were isolated from the data, if the net change in violence due to increased gun ownership would have risen or fallen. For all you know, the factors suppressing gun violence would have suppressed them to less then 1/100K, but the increase in gun ownership kept it inflated at 3.6/100K. Likewise, you cannot know if the other factors suppressing gun violence only suppressed it by 1/100K to 6/100K and the rest came from increase in private gun ownership.

All of which says: the chart is useless. It's just BAD use of statistics to make a claim that cannot be substantiated or refuted. The people who use it know this, which is why it keeps getting used. Statisticians laugh when they see it because it's such BAD use of data, but the lay person keeps slinging it around as if they are actually saying something. And because it scores points and most people don't know how to point out it's meaninglessness - it keeps getting slung around.

After all - we just need to dismiss the statistical analysis as "hand-waving" and we get to thump the NRA, the gun lobby, and the gun rights advocates on the back for a job well done, when all they are really being is dishonest. Either that, or they are really bad at statistical analysis.

I wasn't making a statistical argument, just pointing out where you were missing the point of the graph.

Oh, and your comments about how the people using it "know this," and "all they are really being is dishonest," given your comments elsewhere about people claiming to know your motivation, is pretty rich, and nicely illustrates why I haven't really taken part much in this particular thread.

[carpedm9587]

I wasn't making a statistical argument, just pointing out where you were missing the point of the graph.

I'm not missing the point of the graph, Zym, I am pointing out that it doesn't MAKE a point.

Oh, and your comments about how the people using it "know this," and "all they are really being is dishonest," given your comments elsewhere about people claiming to know your motivation, is pretty rich, and nicely illustrates why I haven't really taken part much in this particular thread.

There would be validity to the second, were it not for that last bit you left off and didn't bold: "Either that, or they are really bad at statistical analysis."

However, I do plead guilty to the earlier mind-reading in the post, "The people who use it know this, which is why it keeps getting used." This is an assumption on my part. I don't know that they know this; it is possible they are just bad at statistical analysis. I do have to seriously wonder, however. This kind of tossing out meaningless data to market an idea is common. It's hard for me to imagine that the people who snagged this graph and have been using it as Rogue did DON'T know it is meaningless - but I have to admit it is possible. So mea culpa. I did engage in mind reading in that part of my post, and you rightfully called me on it.

[Sparko]

...and you are providing a map.

keep up. Even if you take away the map, they will find a way. They will draw their own map.

[Littlejoe]

The Western Australia shooting is shocking, certainly, but your link makes the point that these seven deaths is worst mass shooting in more than 20 years. The Australian gun laws have been successful overall, this is the point.

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/10/gu...ralia-updated/

OTOH: There have been 101 mass shootings in the US so far in 2018 alone.

http://www.businessinsider.com/how-m...is-year-2018-2

Yes, again, I concede it has been effective for reducing GUN mass killings, but the OVERALL mass killing rate has stayed the same. As Carp said:

In the immortal words of Jurassic Park: "nature finds a way."

[Cerebrum123]

Yes, again, I concede it has been effective for reducing GUN mass killings, but the OVERALL mass killing rate has stayed the same. As Carp said:

carp didn't even get the quote right. It is "life, uh… finds a way".