http://rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2013-03-24 12:17 am
rowsdowerisms.livejournal.com) wrote in politicartoons2013-03-24 12:17 am
I was hoping you would learn to stop trying to rationalize gun violence. Funny how stories of the UK gun ban making crime worse make no mention of the methodological changes in how crime was measured in the intermediary. Nope, instead you make grossly dishonest comparisons. Well sorry but the US has a gun death rate 10 times higher than Australia and 50 times higher than the UK even if what you purported to say was actually accurate so you can fuck right off.
When you assume you make an ass of yourself Jeff...
Very emotive. Not exactly what I'd call a fair presentation of the statistics though.
It lacks a source.
It lacks information on what kinds of deaths are included
It doesn't place the statistic in context (which would mean comparing it to the size of the overall population).
I'm not saying that gun-regulation isn't justified, but if it is justified then we should be able to use statistics properly to prove the point.
It lacks a source.
It lacks information on what kinds of deaths are included
It doesn't place the statistic in context (which would mean comparing it to the size of the overall population).
I'm not saying that gun-regulation isn't justified, but if it is justified then we should be able to use statistics properly to prove the point.
"The Huffington Post compiled news reports of gun-related homicides and accidental deaths in the U.S. since the massacre in Newtown, Conn. on the morning of Dec. 14."
http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/gun-deaths
http://data.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/gun-deaths
Thanks, that solves one of the three problems I raised.
It solves two, source and type of gun deaths involved.
I'm not sure how to place the stats in context other than to look at other countries.
Hope this helps with the 3rd problem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I'm not sure how to place the stats in context other than to look at other countries.
Hope this helps with the 3rd problem...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
I'm aware of the Drug War's impact on violence...
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
madscience did acknowledge that 'correlation is not causation' and seems to be aware of the problem with using International comparisons to make judgements about national policy: link (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/3601073.html?thread=81865905#t81865905)However, the same problems apply even more so to your comparison. It's no good comparing a nation currently without gun laws to a nation currently with gun laws. You need to see what the general pattern is in regards to homicide rates in nations that introduce a ban (or increased regulation) on firearms.
Also, my understanding of the changes to how crime is recorded in the UK since the handgun ban is that the general effect has been to produce lower amounts of recorded crime for the same level of actual crime. I'd have expected that issue to have skewed the statistics in favour of the pro-gun regulation argument.
Are the statistics inclusive of suicides?
A link to wikipedia doesn't help with the problem with statistics as used in the meme, no.
The problem with the meme is that it gives us the number of deaths in a population without putting it in proportion against the total population number. The second statistic is essential for justifying the extent of the problem under discussion and should be included within the meme (I shouldn't have to search elsewhere for it)
A link to wikipedia doesn't help with the problem with statistics as used in the meme, no.
The problem with the meme is that it gives us the number of deaths in a population without putting it in proportion against the total population number. The second statistic is essential for justifying the extent of the problem under discussion and should be included within the meme (I shouldn't have to search elsewhere for it)
Are the statistics inclusive of suicides?
No.
The problem with the meme is that it gives us the number of deaths in a population without putting it in proportion against the total population number. The second statistic is essential for justifying the extent of the problem under discussion and should be included within the meme (I shouldn't have to search elsewhere for it)
Actually the wikipedia link shows effects of gun violence in proportion to populations globally thereby giving context to where it is problematic locally, ie the US. So.... yeah.
No.
The problem with the meme is that it gives us the number of deaths in a population without putting it in proportion against the total population number. The second statistic is essential for justifying the extent of the problem under discussion and should be included within the meme (I shouldn't have to search elsewhere for it)
Actually the wikipedia link shows effects of gun violence in proportion to populations globally thereby giving context to where it is problematic locally, ie the US. So.... yeah.
Edited 2013-03-24 22:16 (UTC)
madscience did acknowledge that 'correlation is not causation' and seems to be aware of the problem with using International comparisons to make judgements about national policy: link
If by acknowledge, you mean pay lip service to, then sure.
Also, my understanding of the changes to how crime is recorded in the UK since the handgun ban is that the general effect has been to produce lower amounts of recorded crime for the same level of actual crime. I'd have expected that issue to have skewed the statistics in favour of the pro-gun regulation argument.
You've got it backwards. Recorded crime has gone up in large measure due to new methods of recording crime, not because of gun bans, as mr madscience hopes you believe.
If by acknowledge, you mean pay lip service to, then sure.
Also, my understanding of the changes to how crime is recorded in the UK since the handgun ban is that the general effect has been to produce lower amounts of recorded crime for the same level of actual crime. I'd have expected that issue to have skewed the statistics in favour of the pro-gun regulation argument.
You've got it backwards. Recorded crime has gone up in large measure due to new methods of recording crime, not because of gun bans, as mr madscience hopes you believe.
Edited 2013-03-24 22:19 (UTC)
"Recorded crime has gone up in large measure due to new methods of recording crime"
Got a source for that claim?
Got a source for that claim?
Racist trolling is still racist.
I don't think anyone here would disagree with that.
Numbers of crimes recorded by the police have risen over this period largely due to changes to the counting rules
for crime, reporting by the public and police recording practices.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf
for crime, reporting by the public and police recording practices.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110218135832/rds.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs07/bcs25.pdf
And that's relevant to the reported increase in crime in Australia because...?
"Actually the wikipedia link "
Is the wikipedia link part of the image posted?
If not then the image still made bad use of statistics.
Is the wikipedia link part of the image posted?
If not then the image still made bad use of statistics.
"If by acknowledge, you mean pay lip service to, then sure."
I'll take an acknowledgement over no acknowledgement at all.
"You've got it backwards. "
The information on that is more mixed than last time I looked into it.
I'll take an acknowledgement over no acknowledgement at all.
"You've got it backwards. "
The information on that is more mixed than last time I looked into it.
If not then the image still made bad use of statistics.
The image is merely conveying data. I don't know how it could possibly be a bad use if the data is presented accurately. What conclusions you may or may not draw from such data is another matter...
The image is merely conveying data. I don't know how it could possibly be a bad use if the data is presented accurately. What conclusions you may or may not draw from such data is another matter...
I was responding to wights question on the UK. For your BS on Australia...
"This report demonstrates that much of the public concern about
apparent rising increases in crime has been generated by over-simplistic
interpretations of crime statistics in the last 20 years or so, and that many
suggested crime strategies have been founded on a limited understanding of
the profound changes that have occurred in Australian society in those
decades"
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/5/B/F/%7B5BFBD30D-238E-425C-9EB8-CCA85C2597AA%7Dti28.pdf
"This report demonstrates that much of the public concern about
apparent rising increases in crime has been generated by over-simplistic
interpretations of crime statistics in the last 20 years or so, and that many
suggested crime strategies have been founded on a limited understanding of
the profound changes that have occurred in Australian society in those
decades"
http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/5/B/F/%7B5BFBD30D-238E-425C-9EB8-CCA85C2597AA%7Dti28.pdf
I'll take an acknowledgement over no acknowledgement at all.
Ok... I'll take an honest acknowledgement over no acknowledgement...
The information on that is more mixed than last time I looked into it.
Drawing conclusions that madsciense has then seems to be quite unfounded doesn't it?
Ok... I'll take an honest acknowledgement over no acknowledgement...
The information on that is more mixed than last time I looked into it.
Drawing conclusions that madsciense has then seems to be quite unfounded doesn't it?
"I don't know how it could possibly be a bad use if the data is presented accurately."
It is very possible to use statistics in a misleading manner. It happens all the time in politics. You never seen a politician paint a inaccurate picture using accurate statistics?
In this case, a number of deaths within a population is given without giving the total population number. That's bad statistics as it gives no sense of scale, and thus can make a problem look bigger than it really is.
An example is International Aid. Every time I see a report on UK contributions to International Aid, it's always 'look at this really big amount of money we're giving away'. The number given is accurate and will seem very big to individual person, but is actually a tiny amount of the UK budget. This gives people a very false impression about the proportion of money spent on International Aid by the UK.
That's bad statistics, despite the numbers being correct.
It is very possible to use statistics in a misleading manner. It happens all the time in politics. You never seen a politician paint a inaccurate picture using accurate statistics?
In this case, a number of deaths within a population is given without giving the total population number. That's bad statistics as it gives no sense of scale, and thus can make a problem look bigger than it really is.
An example is International Aid. Every time I see a report on UK contributions to International Aid, it's always 'look at this really big amount of money we're giving away'. The number given is accurate and will seem very big to individual person, but is actually a tiny amount of the UK budget. This gives people a very false impression about the proportion of money spent on International Aid by the UK.
That's bad statistics, despite the numbers being correct.
My own position is that I don't think there is strong evidence that gun regulation has much of an effect on homicide rates (in either direction).
I don't think people are stupid for thinking otherwise, but both sides of the argument seem to do a lot of clutching at straws for statistical backing. Using the UK's low homicide rate to argue for gun regulation strikes me as an obvious example of dodgy statistics, but (as made clear in my opening) I'm not convinced by the opposing argument either.
I don't think people are stupid for thinking otherwise, but both sides of the argument seem to do a lot of clutching at straws for statistical backing. Using the UK's low homicide rate to argue for gun regulation strikes me as an obvious example of dodgy statistics, but (as made clear in my opening) I'm not convinced by the opposing argument either.
I'm not using UK's homicide rate for an argument for gun control I'm using it to deconstruct madscience's poor argument. I'm happy to have a discussion about policy but only after we acknowledge and respect certain facts. Facts that people like madscience or squidboi or whomever always look to explain away.
Page 2 of 5