Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Tinykong]

Predictions based on data. Yeah. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It's done it literally every single scientific field known to man.

Sure it is.

And in this particular case, there is no accuracy. You're comparing what actually happened to what might have happened.

[Deleted]

There is no "accuracy." They are quite literally making up numbers based on what they predicted might happen.

They did not make up numbers, there's a 115,56426% chance that you are wrong.

(Its funny because I made that last number up)

[TZucchini]

You're comparing what actually happened to what might have happened.

Correct. And again. There's nothing wrong with that. Every field of science does it. They use data and make predictions. Their predictions are based on loads and loads of control data from surrounding states. Whether or not you personally consider their prediction to be accurate isn't really important.

[Deleted]

There's a difference between following all the current laws in order to purchase a firearm and being forced to follow pseudo ex post facto registration that didn't exist when you made said purchase.

Any argument to the contrary is just specious.

I don't get why you wouldn't registrate firearms in your possession, or why people are so against the idea.

[Tinykong]

Correct. And again. There's nothing wrong with that. Every field of science does it. They use data and make predictions. Their predictions are based on loads and loads of control data from surrounding states. Whether or not you personally consider their prediction to be accurate isn't really important.

Who said there was anything wrong with it? I said it was interesting that they used made up data.

It can't possible be accurate by definition.

[TZucchini]

Who said there was anything wrong with it? I said it was interesting that they used made up data.

It can't possible be accurate by definition.

No one is making up data. They're looking at data and making predictions.

If you think predictions based on data can't be accurate, you should probably take that up with Nate Silver.

[Tinykong]

No one is making up data. They're looking at data and making predictions.

They demonstrably did "make it up." They expected to see numbers, so they just used those in the calculation. The data doesn't exist because it never happened. This is another case where you don't like the phrasing because it detracts from the point you're trying to make.

If you think predictions based on data can't be accurate, you should probably take that up with Nate Silver.

Sure, predictions can be. In this case, it cannot.

[TZucchini]

They demonstrably did "make it up." They expected to see numbers, so they just used those in the calculation. The data doesn't exist because it never happened. This is another case where you don't like the phrasing because it detracts from the point you're trying to make.

Their data was formed through calculation and control. If you'd like to use the term "made up" to describe that process, more power to you.

Sure, predictions can be. In this case, it cannot.

Yes. In this case, it can be. It's no different at all.

[Phanuel]

I don't get why you wouldn't registrate firearms in your possession, or why people are so against the idea.

Because the US was founded by a population overthrowing their government. So telling your government where the tools to stop them (sure, it's a bit of a fantasy these days) are is quite the opposite of what the spirit of the 2nd amendment is about.

[lockedout]

Yes. In this case, it can be. It's no different at all.

Thought police in full effect.

[Tinykong]

Their data was formed through calculation and control. If you'd like to use the term "made up" to describe that process, more power to you.

They merely said "we expected to see X homicides in the next year, so we'll compare the actual number of homicides to that number." No amount of controls or "highly scientific processing" will change that into anything other than a made up number.

Yes. In this case, it can be. It's no different at all.

It's very different.

We can say "We predict we will have 20 inches of rain fall this year." Then, after the year is up, we can compare our prediction to the actual rain fall. How close our prediction is to that observed result is a measure of our prediction's accuracy.

This study is comparing observed results to expected results. By definition there cannot be any accuracy because the number of homicides that would have occurred during this time frame without this law in effect is unknown.

[PhaelixWW]

Connecticut handgun licensing law associated with 40 percent drop in gun homicides.

Cherry-picked data is cherry-picked.

During that 10-year span, the Connecticut firearm homicide rate dropped 40%, sure. The rest of the country, of course, dropped 30%. So the difference is not that dramatic.

On top of that, if you include data up to 2011 (so as not to include the Newtown spike), Connecticut's firearm homicide rate is only down 15% from 1995, with a large increase right after the cherry-picked 10-year span. On comparison, the US rate fell even more to a nearly 40% drop.

So, yeah, not very compelling at all. Sorry.

[TZucchini]

Cherry-picked data is cherry-picked.

During that 10-year span, the Connecticut firearm homicide rate dropped 40%, sure. The rest of the country, of course, dropped 30%. So the difference is not that dramatic.

On top of that, if you include data up to 2011 (so as not to include the Newtown spike), Connecticut's firearm homicide rate is only down 15% from 1995, with a large increase right after the cherry-picked 10-year span. On comparison, the US rate fell even more to a nearly 40% drop.

So, yeah, not very compelling at all. Sorry.

If you're going to plagiarize Lott, you might as well cite his work.

I also like how we're excluding the Newtown data, just because.

[Tinykong]

If you're going to plagiarize Lott, you might as well cite his work.

I also like how we're excluding the Newtown data, just because.

These laws wouldn't have prevented Lanza from accessing the firearms he used.

Not "just because."

[TZucchini]

These laws wouldn't have prevented Lanza from accessing the firearms he used.

Not "just because."

How could you possibly know that. You're complaining about educated guesses, and here you are, making one yourself.

[Tinykong]

How could you possibly know that. You're complaining about educated guesses, and here you are, making one yourself.

His mother acquired the handgun he used while these laws were in effect, or if she purchased the Glock 20 prior to 1995 (it's been in production since 1991) she still was a "legal" handgun purchaser under this law, meaning this law wouldn't have prevented her from purchasing had it been in effect prior to 1995.

Quite literally the laws didn't prevent his usage. There is no "guessing." It's a fact.

[TZucchini]

His mother acquired the handgun he used while these laws were in effect, or if she purchased the Glock 20 prior to 1995 (it's been in production since 1991) she still was a "legal" handgun purchaser under this law, meaning this law wouldn't have prevented her from purchasing had it been in effect prior to 1995.

Quite literally the laws didn't prevent his usage. There is no "guessing." It's a fact.

So by definition, any homicide that takes place while the law is active means the law didn't stop it from occurring. I get that.

The question then is why are we excluding those homicides? Shouldn't every single firearm homicide be excluded then, and not just the Newtown homicides? The logic is completely nonsensical. It's cherry-picking at its finest.

[PhaelixWW]

If you're going to plagiarize Lott, you might as well cite his work.

Plagiarize Lott? The only thing I read was the article you posted. I haven't read anything Lott wrote about this study, sorry.

Honestly, the data I used is easily accessible.

I also like how we're excluding the Newtown data, just because.

Uh... including Newtown would only help my point and hurt yours. I was being generous, since the rate for 2012 in Connecticut is actually higher than it was in 1995.

Do try to make your snark appropriate or else you just come across looking like an idiot.

[Stormdash]

I love how the troika of anti-2As on this thread frequently refer to this Lott person as though anybody but them know the fuck he is, let alone are consciously plagiarizing him. Trent Lott? Ronnie Lott? Mix-A-Lot?

[Tinykong]

The question then is why are we excluding those homicides? Shouldn't every single firearm homicide be excluded then, and not just the Newtown homicides? The logic is completely nonsensical. It's cherry-picking at its finest.

I misunderstood what Phaelix was saying, I thought the study included the Newtown shooting and by removing that event the decrease was less. For whatever reason I thought the study was from 1995 to 2015.