Connecticut (et al)

[Jason]

Yet I have. Over the course of the past several months. So have several others - Wumbologist took you to task regularly. Why should I address the same garbage again?

In response to the quoted below.

[Jason]

Not really. I don't accept bad science. Simple as that.

Yet you have not demonstrated any bad science.

[Jason]

You have simply refused to accept statistical data.

When a person rejects data because it does not conform to his/her personal prejudgments, that is most definitely bad science.

Raw data is nothing without proper analysis. Apparently you don't understand how science works.

[Rum]

In the last 5 years gun sales have skyrocketed and the number of guns has jumped by millions, and yet there is no increase in the violent crime rate, as you predict. In fact, crime rates continue to go down.

As I pointed out earlier, reputable researchers ascribe that reduction in crime rates to other factors. I have not yet found a single reputable researcher who claims that more guns is the cause of the drop in crime. Nor does an increase in guns explain why the same drop in crime rate has been happening right across the western world. A local change in the USA cannot explain a trend that exists everywhere in western countries.

The commonest explanation by American researchers is that longer prison sentences is the cause, since convicted felons who are languishing in prison cannot be out creating mayhem. My own belief is that the main cause is the aging population, because, on average, people are older, and older people commit fewer crimes. My explanation also explains why the same trend is seen across the western world, since this demographic change is ubiquitous in the first world.

Sounds like she needs her own gun and better self-esteem and discretionary powers in her choice of a mate.

She certainly needs better discretion in her choice of a mate. However, having her own gun simply provides her mate with another gun to grab and shoot her with.

Crime is dropping in the UK too. No guns needed either. There is some puzzlement over the fall, however one well respected view is simply that people are better behaved.

[Blind groper]

Crime is dropping throughout the western world. No explanation that fails to take into account the breadth of this trend is likely to be correct.

[Blind groper]

Raw data is nothing without proper analysis. Apparently you don't understand how science works.

I understand how science works perfectly well, thank you. A science degree, years working in applied science, and a lifetime of study, all of which I have accomplished, is not for nothing.

Scientists frequently reject analyses and ask for raw data, because raw data is less misleading. Analyses can be warped and biased to give incorrect answers.

Having said that, most of the data I have presented is neither fully analysed or raw. It is generally partially manipulated to put it into a form easy to understand, while not being modified sufficiently to alter it.

The one thing, though, that is totally and completely a betrayal of good science, is to reject data. You can question data. You can manipulate data. You can draw alternate conclusions. But to reject data without studying it and taking it seriously, is very bad science indeed.

[Jason]

Raw data is nothing without proper analysis. Apparently you don't understand how science works.

I understand how science works perfectly well, thank you. A science degree, years working in applied science, and a lifetime of study, all of which I have accomplished, is not for nothing.

Somehow I highly doubt that from reading your posts. Inferential statistics - look it up.

Scientists frequently reject analyses and ask for raw data, because raw data is less misleading. Analyses can be warped and biased to give incorrect answers.

Scientists PERFORM analyses on raw data they gather. Ugh.

Having said that, most of the data I have presented is neither fully analysed or raw. It is generally partially manipulated to put it into a form easy to understand, while not being modified sufficiently to alter it.

The data you provide is always accompanied by your conclusion. You are not in a position to analyse it - you don't have the specifics of the methods used to gather that data.

The one thing, though, that is totally and completely a betrayal of good science, is to reject data. You can question data. You can manipulate data. You can draw alternate conclusions. But to reject data without studying it and taking it seriously, is very bad science indeed.

Raw data presented by itself is misleading. As I said you're not in a position to analyze it, and I'm fairly certain you're not qualified to in any case.

This is, however, somewhat of a red herring because you've also posted studies, in which data is gathered, analyzed, and conclusions drawn, which are cases of bad science - drawing conclusions not supported by the data by ignoring confounding factors and reverse causation to name just two major failures common to all these studies. I might hazard a guess that these 'scientists' set out gathering data with the conclusion already in mind.

[Blind groper]

This is, however, somewhat of a red herring because you've also posted studies, in which data is gathered, analyzed, and conclusions drawn, which are cases of bad science - drawing conclusions not supported by the data by ignoring confounding factors and reverse causation to name just two major failures common to all these studies. I might hazard a guess that these 'scientists' set out gathering data with the conclusion already in mind.

That is always a hazard when you are researching something as controversial as this. Sometimes researchers do gather data to support a conclusion, and you are correct in saying that this practice is bad science. It is quite possible that some of the studies I quoted are of this nature. But I am willing to bet that a higher percentage of those things Seth quotes fit that bill!

However, the basic statistics I quote are not so assailable. Here are four.

The USA has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world.
The USA has an unexceptional rate of violent crime - pretty much average compared to other western nations.
Yet the USA has the highest murder rate of any western nation - four times as high as most of its peers.
Two thirds of those murders are with firearms, compared to less than 10% with most of its peer group countries.

If violent crime rates are unexceptional, which they are, then American criminals are not nastier than criminals elsewhere, or more numerous, or more active. Criminality in the USA is pretty much average for a western nation. Yet murder rates are exceptional - more in line with a third world, undeveloped country. That poses an obvious question - why?

The clear cut and obvious answer is guns and gun culture.

You may disagree with this conclusion, as you are entitled to. But to make your disagreement credible, you need to pose an alternate explanation. If the alternate explanation is more gangs, or more drugs, or more violent ethnic minorities, then I will reject that explanation. Because those explanations would require a much higher rate of overall violent crime, which is not there. I will also reject that explanation because I know that other nations, like NZ and the UK, also have big gang problems, big drug problems, and lots of ethnic minorities, and a violent crime rate similar to the USA, but a quarter or less of the murder rate.

[Jason]

Bum Custard

[Blind groper]

Bum Custard

Sounds of derision!

That is not a valid answer.

[Blind groper]

Further to the business of completed studies.

I try to quote those which come from reputable sources. The following reference is from Harvard University. I do not know about other people, but I regard Harvard as a reputable source.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hi ... index.html

This is a summary of a number of studies published in peer reviewed journals, and clearly show that the success of self defense with a gun is massively over-estimated. Noting like the 2 million that Seth likes to quote is anywhere near real. Read it and weep, Seth.

[Jason]

Bum Souffle

[Blind groper]

Bum Souffle

Faku

I hope you have a sense of irony. For someone who criticised me on the grounds that I was not supplying valid evidence, you are plumbing the depths.

[Svartalf]

Face it you two, your argument is flushed down the toilet.

[Blind groper]

Well...

I think Faku is using shitty logic.

Kinda leaves me feeling pissed. I prefer not to have to engage in other people's crappy arguments. No one feels flushed with success.