Skip to main content

View Diary: First gun show accident of 2014 continues avg. 1-per-month streak into 3rd year: GunFAIL LVII (150 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  You degrade us all...have a great life...n/t (0+ / 0-)

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 02:21:26 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  One wonders (0+ / 0-)

      why you even bothered to weigh in with so little to contribute to the discussion.

      Next time, do your homework and stay on topic.

      Let's see:

      Thinks 108k DGUs is the 'final answer': wrong
      Thinks each DGU is a life saved: wrong
      Thinks homicide rate isn't related to gun availability: wrong

      Can't answer what a DGU is when no threat or attack is present, can't justify or even comment regarding a potential 50% false positive rate for self-reported surveys.

      When confronted with data, even data from a Kleck DGU study, you fall back on a meaningless hit-and-run insult.

      Have a great life, indeed. Just know that if you, or any of your RKBA buddies keep peddling this survey bullshit as 'factual', I'll slap you down each time I see it.

      •  I've done my homework..."Buddy"! (0+ / 0-)

        It's this "theoretical math problem" you're attempting to push off as legitimate conversation that has me disgusted.

        I think that when you boil things down to numbers, we humans become mere statistics...no thanks, I'm not a number on your computer screen.

        I don't care what YOUR numbers are.  MY "homework" was living to argue with you about the 2nd Amendment 40+ yrs later!

        A gun saved FOUR lives that day.  I could give a flying rats ass if they never saved a life before or after. At the moment I needed superior force, it was within arms reach and saved my life.

        And you haven't slapped anything down here buster!  YOU have proven beyond a doubt that life is just a numbers game to you to be argued anonymously on the "intertubes"...

        Have fun with that...I'm not here to play games.

        108.000 live per year have been saved, AT A MINIMUM, through the exercise of the "Right To Keep And Bear Arms".

        As for this garbage:

        Can't answer what a DGU is when no threat or attack is present,
        Impossible to know without self-reporting/admission to criminal intent.

        This leads us to this propaganda:

        50% false positive rate for self-reported surveys.
        So, wise master sir, does this mean those "survey's" our gov't uses...just like "The National Crime Victimization Survey" is invalid as well?

        You can't have it both ways baby.  Your "math argument" fails yet again.

        You need to find a better argument.

        And you couldn't answer my simple questions and yet assail me for answering yours....

        What if just 1 life was saved?

        What if that 1 life was yours?

        Would the numbers matter then???

        OH, and wasn't your demand that we whom uprated the posting, give our reason(s)????

        Shit, had I known you would refuse the answer because it didn't fit your agenda, then I wouldn't have wasted my time.

        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 06:13:35 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Theoretical math? (0+ / 0-)

          Methinks you don't know what the word theoretical actually means.

          The numbers in the external validation calculations are vetted against actual reported reality, not extrapolations from 56 people in a survey, and therefore much less uncertain than any of the self-reported surveys.

          A gun saved FOUR lives that day.  I could give a flying rats ass if they never saved a life before or after. At the moment I needed superior force, it was within arms reach and saved my life.
          And how many has a gun killed since then? Ah right, you 'could give a flying rats ass'. Also known as the: don't give a shit about anyone but myself defense.

          Your four lives are important to you, everyone gets that. The thousands who have died from gun violence since then have been important to others, just as much. You may think I'm 'minimizing' your experience and the four saved lives, but you are doing the same to many tens of thousands more.

          108.000 live per year have been saved, AT A MINIMUM, through the exercise of the "Right To Keep And Bear Arms".
          BULLSHIT. 100% That is a self-reported survey that doesn't include the error bars, confidence intervals, or any statistical measures of accuracy. It also fails the 3 external validations, the statistical p value test linked further down, and the 'smell test' in the complete and utter dearth of 'DGU saved my life' stories that gun rights advocates would be publishing all over the web, to the tune of and expected 300 PER DAY. Where are they? chirping crickets

          Your disregard of math and external validation does not give you the right to claim things that just aren't true.

          With regard to a DGU when no threat is present, I'm not asking you to validate each one of those in the survey, I'm asking you to provide an example of a justifiable DGU when no threat is present. Give an example, that's all. Explain how one can 'defensively' use a gun when there is no threat to defend against.

          So, wise master sir, does this mean those "survey's" our gov't uses...just like "The National Crime Victimization Survey" is invalid as well?
          If they are self-reported surveys with a low incidence value, then absolutely they suffer the same problems with false positives, see here:

          http://www.statisticsdonewrong.com/...

          You can't have it both ways baby.  Your "math argument" fails yet again.

          You need to find a better argument.

          Laughable. You don't even appear to understand the math well enough to critique it. Just bury your head in the sand. Do you need me to explain the relevance of the statistical p-value link posted above? I hope not since it has the good fortune of including a DGU example as well as others.

          Answer these?

          What if just 1 life was saved?
          What if that 1 life was yours?

          Would the numbers matter then???

          Seriously? You're falling back on emotional appeals to make your argument? I didn't answer before because transparently emotional appeals are a pretty fucking stupid way to debate policy, but sure, I'll answer. Of course it would matter to me, just like it matters to the few thousand lives saved each year from DGU. But there are many things that matter to me that shouldn't necessarily be implemented as policy.

          But then, the argument is just as easy to turn on you, as all emotional appeals are: would it matter to you if you or your family were gunned down by someone who would have been denied a gun with a background check?

          Do you think it matters to the friends and family of the thousands of people killed each year by gun violence?

          When it comes to policy, do you really think we should fall back on emotional appeals, because that sure sounds like a piss-poor way to run a country to me.

          Shit, had I known you would refuse the answer because it didn't fit your agenda, then I wouldn't have wasted my time.
          Refuse to answer? There are 3 external validations still waiting your critiques. You can add to that the issues with false positives and p value for low incidence occurrences in the link above.

          You've got a lot of work to do before you get the privilege of saying I've 'refused to answer' your questions. Especially when one of your responses was an pathetic attempt at a zero-content pithy one-liner insult.

          Yes, I 'demanded', or rather asked that you justify yourself. But I asked specifically to justify your uprate of the 100% incorrect math of that response.

          If math and statistics just isn't your thing, just say so and go find less numerical discussions.

          •  Your argument fails in some logic... (0+ / 0-)
            And how many has a gun killed since then? Ah right, you 'could give a flying rats ass'. Also known as the: don't give a shit about anyone but myself defense.
            The question should be:

            How many has THAT gun killed before or since?

            Zero, would be the answer...by the way.

            I truly care that all whom need (or want) a tool, have it, if they so desire.

            It's that simple.  That tool, if used incorrectly can maim and kill.  It can also intentionally kill.  It's up to the person holding it that matters, NOT the item they're holding.

            Huge difference.  I want as many people as possible to have a many tomorrows as life grants them.  I don't want or need to know "the numbers"...really.   I know too many people are dying from violence, including gun violence...Well...how do we become less violent?

            Teach our children non-violent dispute resolution, teach them how to think critically and logically.

            If you ban "X"...they'll start using "Y"...wash, rinse, repeat until anything and everything one can use to hurt another is banned...TEACH the person to be non-violent and poof...problem solved!

            This is why your math is immaterial...it leads to false solutions that will do nothing to stop violence.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 08:08:09 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

        •  A more polite reply (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          gerrilea

          and possible solution to our disagreement.

          That 108,000 DGU/year number is from 1994 statistics.

          All of my external validations are using current ~2012-2013 values (justifiable homicides and violent crime rate).

          According to the DoJ, current crime rates are 1/3 of what they were in 1994.

          http://www.wanttoknow.info/...

          It seems likely that DGUs should scale with violent crime rate, so 108,000 DGUs in 1994 would equate to 36,000 DGUs annually in present day.

          This number is exactly in the ball park of my external validation calculations.

          It seems we may have less to argue about then we thought.

          •  Not sure if I follow the logical progression here (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Ozy

            If DGU's were at 108,000 or 10x the murder rate...then it should mirror today...gun homicides have gone down by 49%...meaning the DGU's...if accurate should be closer to 54,000.

            http://www.cnn.com/...

            The new study found U.S. firearm homicides peaked in 1993 at 7.0 deaths per 100,000 people. But by 2010, the rate was 49% lower, and firearm-related violence -- assaults, robberies, sex crimes -- was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993, the study found.
            What's not included or weighted in this analysis is the massive increase in firearm ownership over this same period.

            We went from 194 million to over 310 million.  From 40% ownership to 47%...that's a huge increase.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Sat Feb 22, 2014 at 08:17:43 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  DGUs are not just about homicides (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              gerrilea

              they are primarily about preventing violent crimes and property crimes, such as burglaries, robberies, and assaults. At least according to the surveys.

              As such, they should mirror the overall reduction in all violent crime, rather than specifically homicides.

              And, since DGUs don't necessarily depend on the 'attacker' having a gun, we wouldn't necessarily expect it to drop by the full 75% decline in firearm-related violence, but again by the average overall violent crime rate reduction.

              Here's a good document of the various crime prevalence rates, and their decline.

              http://www.bjs.gov/...

              In general, if you include both violent crime and also property crime rates (burglaries and other crimes that could also invoke a DGU), an average reduction in prevalence of ~2/3rds is about right.

              That's a good point about the increase in gun ownership as well. That's about a 20% increase which could boost the DGU numbers proportionally. However, the number of households with guns has declined from 45.5% to 34.4%, about a 25% reduction, which would proportionally lower DGUs for things like burglaries and 'on-property' violent crime.

              http://www.gunpolicy.org/...

              •  These statistics are still only based on (0+ / 0-)

                self-reporting.  How do we overcome this inherent flaw?

                Is someone going to admit on a phone survey that they have/own a gun illegally or have used a gun they didn't register to defend themselves?

                Surely not and this problem will become even more nefarious with the revelations of the crimes of the NSA.  Nobody in their right mind will be admitting that over the phone, in fact, I'd wager, they'd outright lie about firearm ownership now.

                As an example of these flaws in all these "models", in the 50 yrs or so that I've been alive, just this past week I was called for a "pew research survey".

                Once in my entire life.

                Then we have sample size, time of day called, location-rural or urban, age, sex, education of person getting call, etc.

                It's like the numbers the DOL puts out for unemployment.  Why is it based on surveys?  How about we get the information directly from the Social Security Administration?  We'd know instantly how many people are working and how many aren't.  We'd know their age, their sex, the marital status, the State they reside in, hell we'd know if they were working fulltime or parttime even, we'd know their estimated yearly income, etc...etc...etc...

                I know people love to quantify things, I do it all the time myself...but is that truly going to help anyone?  Nope, it's going to give our Politicians BS to spread that their doing something.

                How many jobs did the now permanent Bush Tax Breaks create?

                How many are they creating today?

                I think we both know the answer to that, we don't need a survey to tell us.

                What I find in consistent with the number of homes with firearms reported is the simple fact the FBI's NICS system has had record setting requests, year after year for almost a decade.  Its currently at a 45.7% increase.

                I do not believe for a moment that firearm ownership has gone down like it's been claimed.  I have FEMALE co-workers whom are getting permits AND guns.  20 yrs ago, no one ever talked about self defense or even owning a firearm.  You didn't talk about guns, ever.  Not here in New York anyways.  

                Here in Buffalo, there's been some very disturbing home invasions and violence on a scale rarely seen.

                How many people are going to "opt out" of our legal permitting requirements and own a weapon anyways?

                "Better to be tried by 12 than buried by 6", right?

                Which leads me to even question the claims violence has gone down.  Adrian Schoolcraft's whistleblowing revealed that the police numbers are mostly fabrications, intentionally so, to get federal funding.

                I know from firsthand experiences here in Buffalo, the police don't want to take a report when you call them.  My apartment was broken into and when I found the mess, I promptly called them.  The "police officer" asked me if I really wanted to file a report.  Are you freaking serious?  And I asked that!  They then asked me, "Why are you going to report it to your insurance company?"  I said I didn't have an insurance company. Their reply, "Well there's no point in filing the report then."

                I was furious!  

                But hey, this is the reality I see and exist in...the numbers lie.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 01:55:02 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Look at the charts (0+ / 0-)

                  http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

                  Personally, I believe the data from the General Social Survey a bit more than Gallop because it's been tracked longer, shows a smoother function, and also includes individual ownership rates.

                  The Gallop survey is far too 'noisy', indicating that it's error bars are likely much larger.

                  Are we really to believe that between 1994 and 1996 more than 25% of gun-owning households gave them up? Or that 30 million more households had guns 6 months later? Unlikely.

                  Furthermore, that 40% to 47% increase that you stated apparently uses data from the wrong year. 1994, the year from the survey, was at 54% household ownership according to Gallop.

                  But your critiques regarding self-reported surveys are related to what I've been insisting all along. You simply can't trust them to report accurate numbers when it comes to things like gun violence because false positives and false negatives will blow your statistical uncertainties out of the water.

                  That's why I insist that external validation be used to provide a consistency check for any of these surveys. This consistency check just happens to provide a range (~10-60k) that is compatible with the 108k number properly scaled to modern crime and gun ownership rates.

                  That doesn't mean the final scaled number, ~36k, is completely accurate, it could easily be off by 50% in either direction. But it provides a good ballpark number that reasonably compares to non-survey based estimations.

                  The reason that the household and individual ownership rates are declining as the NICS rates increases is pretty easy to explain. People who already owned guns bought more. Given the rhetoric around Obama's election, reelection, as well as the gun control talk surrounding the various mass shootings, this is an obvious result considering it was gun owners and NRA members that were panicking.

                  We already have surveys that directly measure firearm ownership rates, and those charts are linked above, and I have no reason to believe that people were more likely to lie about ownership in 2012 compared to 1994, nor that illegal ownership is more likely in 2012 compared to 1994. In fact, considering the overall reduction in crime and gun related violence, it's likely that illegal gun ownership has significantly declined since 1994, which would further reduce the scaled DGU number. But that's difficult to quantify.

                  Your personal experience may, or may not accurately reflect overall trends in Buffalo, NY. But just like climate change, local conditions aren't necessarily indicative of the global picture, especially when we already have measurements that contradict your anecdotal evidence.

                  •  Thanks for honest conversation. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Ozy

                    How do we get "external validation" for self-reporting?

                    I do understand the difference between "global" and "local', but the leaks are finally surfacing when it comes to the books being cooked for crime stats, not just here in Buffalo but more importantly in our large metro areas, like NYC.

                    Retired Police: NY Crime Stats Manipulated, Fabricated

                    a survey of more than one hundred retired NYPD higher-ups showed that cops—who are under constant pressure to produce happy-looking stats—have routinely fabricated or manipulated their data, since the crime analysis system was put into place in 1995.
                    What's even more disturbing is that many Police Captains, etc from these larger areas are offered very lucrative jobs in other States...spreading their "business", so to speak, elsewhere.  Small municipalities having crime rates going up, will spend a small fortune to get someone "whom can bring results".  How much is truly intentional fabrication or "muscling"victims to remain silent, like I was or an actual drop in crime due to good "policing"?

                    I know it would counter the RKBA stance that violence is going down while gun ownership is going up...but I seriously have no faith that we're being told the truth.

                    Cutbacks force police to curtail calls for some crimes

                    Chicago Police No Longer Respond To Lesser Crimes

                    These developments must be brought into any analysis.  If we stop counting "lesser crimes" and are not reporting the ones that do happen, accurately...then where are we?

                    No further ahead in anything.  

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Sun Feb 23, 2014 at 03:08:37 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site