Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

I'm not even sure you know what evidence is since you are willing to accept opinion over raw data as long as it falls in line with your views.

Opinion over raw data? What the shit are you talking about? You've ceased making sense. Tetlock studied something very specific, which does not apply. And I'll bet you $1 his book is filled with opinions and theories.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Tetlock studied something very specific: Political Judgement forcasting. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about actual sciences. Behavioral science. Epidemiology. Etc.

Wow, you don't even know what actual science is...fucking amazing.

Ask an amateur to look at a cluster of cells, then ask them if it's cancer. Now do that with an oncologist. Even if both groups were right the same amount of time, one is quite clearly right due to luck, while the other is right due to expertise.

...but the articles you link are analogous to a doctor looking at photographs of people and predicting if they are going to get cancer in the future. They are two very different things.

Your attempt to devalue the opinions of experts is really quiet humorous. Please, continue.

No, you just have a real issue with making appeals to authority which generally bloats opinion of those you agree with to fallacious levels.

[TZucchini]

Wow, you don't even know what actual science is...fucking amazing.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that political science isn't a branch of science. It's just completely different than behavioral science, or epidemiology. And Tetlock studied political forecasting, not other branches involved in the studies I've linked. And you haven't addressed that.

Basically, what Tetlock found, is that experts in Political Forecasting are slightly less accurate than computers. You then tried to use that study to question experts in firearms research. Do you understand why that's laughable?

...but the articles you link are analogous to a doctor looking at photographs of people and predicting if they are going to get cancer in the future. They are two very different things.

It's an example as to why expert opinion matters. Here's another example:

No, you just have a real issue with making appeals to authority which generally bloats opinion of those you agree with to fallacious levels.

Please point out where I said "these people are right simply because they are experts."

[Rooflesstoofless]

Opinion over raw data? What the shit are you talking about? You've ceased making sense.

I'm sorry you are having a hard time following along.

The article you provided featured the opinions of an expert in gun research. Nothing wrong with that, but absolutely nothing in the actual research supported the opinion he asserted. There was zero causal link provided between his data and his claim. None. It wasn't even investigated. Tetlock, who is a professor of psychology by the way (I think that is related to behavioral sciences), extrapolated directly from the data and made an observation based on the evidence.

Tetlock studied something very specific, which does not apply. And I'll bet you $1 his book is filled with opinions and theories.

You aren't one of those 'evolution is just a theory' people are you? Of course it contains theories.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe I wasn't clear. I'm not saying that political science isn't a branch of science. It's just completely different than behavioral science, or epidemiology.

Tetlock is a psychologist and the study was inclusive across multiple fields. I'm sorry if you are limited to titles and abstracts but your ignorance doesn't substantiate your point.

And Tetlock studied political forecasting, not other branches involved in the studies I've linked. And you haven't addressed that.

The data comes from across multiple fields and the entire study falls within the field of psychology. The study of expert opinions is a specialty within the field of psychology and the data has pretty much repeated itself for over 50 years now. Before Tetlock became prominent there were researchers like Robyn Dawes looking at the same thing.

Basically, what Tetlock found, is that experts in Political Forecasting are slightly less accurate than computers. You then tried to use that study to question experts in firearms research. Do you understand why that's laughable?

The book took data from multiple fields and is directly related to the psychology behind decision making. Getting caught up on book titles and abstracts leaves you open to a lot of disappointment.

[lockedout]

The book took data from multiple fields and is directly related to the psychology behind decision making. Getting caught up on book titles and abstracts leaves you open to a lot of disappointment.

You're talking to someone who googles keywords and then copy pastes it here without understanding what he is actually linking, as is evident with his last study which he linked from behind a pay wall. Just look at my sig to see how ridiculous it gets.

Mind you the first quote "This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it." The term he is referring to is "hypothesis."

[TZucchini]

You aren't one of those 'evolution is just a theory' people are you? Of course it contains theories.

Lol. Political theory and scientific theory are kind of similar, right? I mean, I'm sure Tetlock discusses evolution, gravity, and germs in his book. Right?

Tetlock is a psychologist and the study was inclusive across multiple fields. I'm sorry if you are limited to titles and abstracts but your ignorance doesn't substantiate your point.

Which specific fields of opinion? Every synopsis I read referenced nothing but political forecasting (e.g. Is the USSR permanent? etc.)

His own summary of the book states "“Partisans across the opinion spectrum are vulnerable to occasional bouts of ideologically induced insanity.”

So please. Do tell. What other sciences do these experts give their opinions on?

- - - Updated - - -

Mind you the first quote "This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it." The term he is referring to is "hypothesis."

Just so you're aware, the term "scientific hypothesis" is real. I'm letting you know that because I feel your education on the subject is extremely lacking, and I'd like to help you out.

[lockedout]

Just so you're aware, the term "scientific hypothesis" is real. I'm letting you know that because I feel your education on the subject is extremely lacking, and I'd like to help you out.

Context is everything. Would you like me to quote the entire conversation so you can see how ignorant you looked? If you remember I am the one who had to familiarize yourself with the word to begin with.

[Rooflesstoofless]

You're talking to someone who googles keywords and then copy pastes it here without understanding what he is actually linking, as is evident with his last study which he linked from behind a pay wall. Just look at my sig to see how ridiculous it gets.

Mind you the first quote "This term isn't far off, though it would need the word "scientific" in front of it." The term he is referring to is "hypothesis."

You are 100% correct. I've met more 5150's with a firmer grasp on reality than this clown.

I just wanted the guy to think for himself instead of just linking policy studies and pretending they are the bee's knees but it's literally like trying to pull someone's head out of their ass when their favorite flavor is shit.

[Tinykong]

Context is everything. Would you like me to quote the entire conversation so you can see how ignorant you looked? If you remember I am the one who had to familiarize yourself with the word to begin with.

It's a "highly scientifically processed" post.

[Mayhem]

No, by what metric do you decide that someone is informed versus not? That kind of thinking is open to so much abuse from anyone.

Should you be able to vote on gun issues if you don't know enough about guns (actions, features, statistical facts about what weapons are most used in what crimes, etc) to make an informed vote?

When did i ever denied people the right to vote?

[PhaelixWW]

Now, even Pew acknowledges that support has shifted away from gun control and towards gun rights.

[Ghostpanther]

Now, even Pew acknowledges that support has shifted away from gun control and towards gun rights.

Very interesting. It seems the Constitution protected gun rights during the time when most wanted more gun control and now we have some states passing even less restrictive gun rights and more considering it. It is reassuring knowing the US Constitution is set up to not allow temporary emotional reactions to public opinion overall.

And the single most reason people want to own a gun is for self defense. Which is also the root of the reason for the Second Amendment to begin with.

Thanks for sharing this info PhaelixWW. I see it as good news.

[Mayhem]

Very interesting. It seems the Constitution protected gun rights during the time when most wanted more gun control and now we have some states passing even less restrictive gun rights and more considering it. It is reassuring knowing the US Constitution is set up to not allow temporary emotional reactions to public opinion overall.

And the single most reason people want to own a gun is for self defense. Which is also the root of the reason for the Second Amendment to begin with.

Thanks for sharing this info PhaelixWW. I see it as good news.

So what is it now? Peoples feels and wants should be represented by policies unless it´s against something you don´t like then it shouldn´t?

[Ghostpanther]

So what is it now? Peoples feels and wants should be represented by policies unless it´s against something you don´t like then it shouldn´t?

You are displaying a lack of understanding in how our government works over here. The US Constitution was purposely designed to be hard to change. And being " The United States of America " the support from a 2/3 majority of the states for a amendment was done on purpose also. Some states have strict gun controls and some are more lax. This is a reflection of the desires of the majority in the states based on who they elect to serve them. We are a democracy, but not in the same way a single entity country would be. And it matters not if you accept this, as I am sure you have no plans on moving over here.

[TZucchini]

Context is everything. Would you like me to quote the entire conversation so you can see how ignorant you looked? If you remember I am the one who had to familiarize yourself with the word to begin with.

We were talking about the term "scientific projection". You wanted to call it a "hypothesis", I wanted to use the term "scientific hypothesis". Since my term was more accurate, I'm not quite sure what you could add here.

It was really a stupid argument to begin with. Just another attempt at discrediting PIRE formulas and CDC data.

"Scientific hypothesis" is a real thing.

You are 100% correct. I've met more 5150's with a firmer grasp on reality than this clown.

Guess it's time to resort to personal attacks. I don't recall throwing any your way...

You also didn't address my most recent post. What other sciences do the experts in Tetlocks study give their opinion on? If you're going to use it to question the opinions of firearm researchers, then it better be somewhat relevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Now, even Pew acknowledges that support has shifted away from gun control and towards gun rights.

I'm not quite sure what you meant by "even Pew acknowledges". Maybe you meant nothing at all by it.

Pew lets the data speak for itself. There certainly has been a shift in public opinion toward gun rights. That's not going to change my position.

[Mayhem]

You are displaying a lack of understanding in how our government works over here. The US Constitution was purposely designed to be hard to change. And being " The United States of America " the support from a 2/3 majority of the states for a amendment was done on purpose also. Some states have strict gun controls and some are more lax. This is a reflection of the desires of the majority in the states based on who they elect to serve them. We are a democracy, but not in the same way a single entity country would be. And it matters not if you accept this, as I am sure you have no plans on moving over here.

What does the bolded part even mean?

We have a similiar system here with a constitution as well.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Guess it's time to resort to personal attacks. I don't recall throwing any your way...

I can only coddle someone for so long before they irritate me.

You also didn't address my most recent post. What other sciences do the experts in Tetlocks study give their opinion on? If you're going to use it to question the opinions of firearm researchers, then it better be somewhat relevant.

That isn't what I used to question the gun researchers and wasn't even brought into the argument till you couldn't wrap your head around the fact that the opinions of the experts have no better a chance of being correct than you or me. Tetlock's work took predictions over a 20 year period in psychology, economics, and political science.

[Mayhem]

That isn't what I used to question the gun researchers and wasn't even brought into the argument till you couldn't wrap your head around the fact that the opinions of the experts have no better a chance of being correct than you or me. Tetlock's work took predictions over a 20 year period in psychology, economics, and political science.

Is every opinion a prediciton?

[TZucchini]

...the opinions of the experts have no better a chance of being correct than you or me.

You should really re-state this for accuracy:

"The predictions of experts with relation to psychology, economics, and political science were found to be only slightly better than those of amateurs, and less accurate than basic computer algorithms."

That's the accurate statement. And it's completely irrelevant to almost every single study I've linked in this thread.

Glad we solved that.

- - - Updated - - -

Is every opinion a prediciton?

This is a great point. The work that I cited gave opinions from firearm researchers. But they weren't future predictions. They were statements like this:

"In the United States, having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide."

84% of firearm researchers agreed with that statement by the way.

[Rooflesstoofless]

Is every opinion a prediciton?

Of course not. We formulate opinions based on our experiences with the world, real or perceived. The problem is supplying opinion on future events especially when nothing in their research actually supports their opinion. Certain people weighting claims of policy studies as some kind of gospel is repugnant.

I honestly don't care if someone is anti-gun or not. Just like I don't care if someone feels differently than me on many social issues but I don't support taking away anyone's rights without severe justification and anyone advocating the removal of someone's rights should be held to the standards as the rest of the scientific community (since, you know, a peer review is enough for someone to proclaim 'science!').

That is why I initially said that I liked the direction of the research but didn't think the author was anywhere close to being able back up a statement like, "These people shouldn't have guns." The logical next step is to see which of these people are actually getting arrested and for what. To narrow down the field and start producing testable results for his claim.

- - - Updated - - -

This is a great point. The work that I cited gave opinions from firearm researchers. But they weren't future predictions. They were statements like this:

"In the United States, having a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide."

84% of firearm researchers agreed with that statement by the way.

If you can't understand the difference between a poll of opinions and unsupported claims of researchers then I don't know if anyone can actually help you.