All Things Second Amendment
- Thread starter Idolater
- Start date
No, that's both oversimplified and missing pieces. I don't want automatic and semi automatic weapons in the stream of commerce. They and certain aids, like large magazines, speed loaders, and bump stocks, make mass murder a relatively easy accomplishment. Enough dead children in schoolyards. Enough mosques, churches, and concerts transformed into charnel houses and memorial sites.
The logical conclusion is that if you can preserve the right to bear arms while dramatically inhibiting the likelihood of those events you should do it.
You've yet to state mine correctly, as I keep noting. So that's funny right there.
Elitist is just another attempt to shift the focus, to peddle fear, to avoid the inarguable good and to cloth paranoia and selfishness in the robes of public virtue.
And that's where too many people opposing reasoned measures to reduce violence while preserving the right are found. A step removed from the fantasy of violently opposing that straw man under the flag of watering the tree of liberty. It's a violent fantasy found in the wheelhouse of people who should know better.
Meanwhile, children are dying in schools, neighbors in churches and mosques, at concerts and nightclubs. And most of it is preventable without surrendering your right to bear arms.
Not even a little true. I'd do no such thing.
No, that's not what a speed limit does and it isn't what a ban on bazookas does either.
And there he keeps going. Because he can't win a rational argument without misstating my case or an emotional appeal against the bodies of children and your neighbors without insisting that my efforts to protect them are wrapped in a word meant to make you feel your way against me, instead of address the point.
Not my limitation, though there's nothing I can't accomplish with my bolt action and over under, or a good pistol, or even a Winchester with seven shots that you can with the blunderbuss of an AR, except endanger a lot of people needlessly.
Registration really isn't remotely that complicated
In exchange for the safety of children, church goers, neighbors, and you, perhaps. Who knows when or where the next nutter or simply evil soul who understands the utility of a weapon easily transported and hidden, capable of doing incredible damage on gatherings of people and without requiring a great deal of preparation or expertise, will choose his killing field.
Only someone without much of an argument spends that much time trying to shift the focus.
Be smarter than he gives you credit for being and more compassionate than he'd have you be.
Most people either don't appear to remember that we had a ban on semi-automatic assault rifle types for 10 years, between 1994 and 2004. Despite the fact that the period didn't allow much time to degrade the stock in the hands of citizens, the incidents of mass shootings involving them decreased.
From the abstract of: "Changes in US mass shooting deaths associated with the 1994-2004 federal assault weapons ban: Analysis of open-source data"
From the Department of Surgery, Division of Trauma and Critical Care Surgery (C.D., J.A., C.B., M.B., J.F., M.K., N.S., M.T., S.F.), New York University School of Medicine, New York, New York.
BACKGROUND:
A federal assault weapons ban has been proposed as a way to reduce mass shootings in the United States. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 made the manufacture and civilian use of a defined set of automatic and semiautomatic weapons and large capacity magazines illegal. The ban expired in 2004. The period from 1994 to 2004 serves as a single-arm pre-post observational study to assess the effectiveness of this policy intervention.
METHODS:
Mass shooting data for 1981 to 2017 were obtained from three well-documented, referenced, and open-source sets of data, based on media reports. We calculated the yearly rates of mass shooting fatalities as a proportion of total firearm homicide deaths and per US population. We compared the 1994 to 2004 federal ban period to non-ban periods, using simple linear regression models for rates and a Poison model for counts with a year variable to control for trend. The relative effects of the ban period were estimated with odds ratios.
RESULTS:
Assault rifles accounted for 430 or 85.8% of the total 501 mass-shooting fatalities reported (95% confidence interval, 82.8-88.9) in 44 mass-shooting incidents. Mass shootings in the United States accounted for an increasing proportion of all firearm-related homicides (coefficient for year, 0.7; p = 0.0003), with increment in year alone capturing over a third of the overall variance in the data (adjusted R = 0.3). In a linear regression model controlling for yearly trend, the federal ban period was associated with a statistically significant 9 fewer mass shooting related deaths per 10,000 firearm homicides (p = 0.03). Mass-shooting fatalities were 70% less likely to occur during the federal ban period (relative rate, 0.30; 95% confidence interval, 0.22-0.39).
CONCLUSION: Mass-shooting related homicides in the United States were reduced during the years of the federal assault weapons ban of 1994 to 2004.
Right Divider
Body part
Who made that rule? You?
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Besides mass murderers (both the suicidal and the typical varieties), and "MS-13" type murderers, don't forget there're also these fellas: serial killers.
https://us.cnn.com/2019/07/16/us/serial-killer-samuel-little-victim-found-trnd/index.html
This one claims to have murdered 90. Women I think. Women please arm yourselves.
This isn't fear mongering but reminders that we're not talking about bogeymen. These people are real. Murderers are real.
It doesn't instill a lot of confidence that the authors would misspell the name of a distribution, regardless, when you ban cars, traffic fatalities fall.
We're going to have to keep waiting for you to start addressing the actual challenges.
It's not a rule, it's a position...though I'm pretty sure you can't take a bazooka to Walmart. :e4e:
And when you ban weapons and aids that have or support a capacity for mass murder in moments, fewer people die from gun violence. Just so.
Saying I've failed to address a thing isn't actually proving I've done that, but it's a great rhetorical tactic to lend the appearance of a thing not in evidence, along with the whole spectre of authority in the weight of the alleged we...or were you elected while I wasn't looking?
In the meantime, my position, backed by empirical evidence, remains.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
Did you count how many doctors---nine---it takes to publish a bush league statistical study? I saw lots of MDs among the authors, a PhD, and a ScD. Apparently the latter two aren't experts in statistics either. Because we already know that the MDs aren't.
What the study tries to say is that all things being equal (ceteris paribus) there is an upward, unexplained trend every year of 0.7 in the proportion of people killed in mass murders. Controlling for this unexplained trend, they found that during 1994-2004, there was a 9 out of 10000 decrease in people killed by mass murders.
That's 11 data, compared to the rest of their huge data set, from 1981-1993, plus from 2005-2017, so 26 data there. They're saying that if you take the average of those 11 data, and compare them to the average of the 26 data, correcting for the unexplained annual rise of 0.7, then there's a 9 out of 10000 difference between the data sets. That's 0.09 % difference.
Because the p-value is significant, the authors apparently think they've hit upon something, without considering the magnitude of the coefficient. It's a common error for neophytes to statistics. They get so excited about that p-value, which shows 'statistical' significance, but it doesn't say anything about practical significance, and this study has zero practical significance.
It also fails to understand that the federal assault weapons ban ("AWB") did not ban ARs and AKs at all. It banned 'features' of these guns, like (and I'm not joking) whether or not the stock was collapsible. It also banned the sale of new 20-round and greater magazines for assault weapons, but there was no shortage of already owned such magazines during 1994-2004. There was no confiscation or "buyback" of them, and it was legal to trade in them, they just had to be older than the "AWB" itself (made before some time in 1994).
I'm sorry to say but there might have been more value in just picking 11 random years and done the analysis, for all the good this "study" tells us.
The decrease would be miniscule. Check your own statistics. :up:
Saying: "I've failed to address a thing isn't actually proving I've done that" is a great rhetorical tactic to not address the challenge, along with the whole spectre of authority in the weight of the alleged we or were you elected while I wasn't looking?
Who knows what we were talking about anymore. :idunno:
Uh, nope. :nono:
You want weapons banned, but the statistics you present only address those items tangentially.
:chuckle:
I just stopped reading when I saw their attempt at spelling Poisson.
Even if they had a legitimate case, it wouldn't say much anyway. :idunno:
But thanks for the insight. :up:
Not unless you own a peculiar dictionary or reserve the right to decide how many lives saved would be miniscule.
That's never been your problem. Your problem is twofold. First, you don't want to see it and second, not seeing it allows you to extend your personal issues with me into another dialogue.
Meanwhile, in every nation where there are stronger gun laws the citizens of that nation are dramatically safer than they are in the US. And in the US, states with the strongest gun laws experience fewer gun fatalities and violence.
This is Idol's opening kill the messenger bit, which he'll back up by throwing a bit of Latin at you (curiously, after the fact) and waving a few terms of art he's reasonably sure won't be understood, both diminishing a number of well educated people, the institution they're authoring the paper for, and the conclusion, if indirectly, while promoting the idea of his authority to judge the work without establishing his credentials.
It's a neat rhetorical trick. Here comes the second leg of that.
What he sort of noted there, is that each year of the ban contains a set of data. There's actually ten years in the ban period and two different periods, before and after the ban, to look at and essentially see if there was any statistical difference notable. Turns out, there was.
They're saying that if you look at the same rough period before and after the ban you'll see a significant statistical variance occurs during, lower numbers of fatalities by gun.
Idol says this without any practical demonstration of why it's so, how what appears significant is altered by his introduction of the term "practical."
An abstract is not the entirety of the thing, is a summary of sorts. It's examining the years in question to determine a particular impact. It manages to do exactly that.
Idol's sorrows notwithstanding, he's wrong.
The years before and after are chosen for a purpose. The rule, the norm, the average that either continues uninterrupted or is impacted by some change is found in that examination. The reason you want years before and after, and why those years are markedly more valuable to understanding the answer to that particular inquiry than randomly chosen sets of data, isn't really difficult to see, unless you don't mean to. If a trend established in the years prior to the years of the bans is suddenly and significantly altered, then resumes with the ending of those bans, it speaks to the impact of them absent some other factor of equal or greater weight that began and ended in the same period.
The study makes its point, Idol's protest aside.
And that's before we understand the data we have from every other Western Industrial Democracy with stronger gun laws and safer citizenry, and before we examine the rule established by the top and bottom states here in terms of gun laws, and the substantive difference in gun violence and deaths you find among the weaker laws as the rule.
Sure, in general or in relation to correlation or regression analysis? When you obtain a M. Ed. you have to take statistics to model tests. This in addition to statistics taught at the undergraduate levels. But here's the thing, you don't really have to be well versed in statistical jargon and models to understand the meat of what this report speaks to, or what the data on gun laws and their efficacy can be said to be observing every other working model in the Western Industrial Democratic world.
You can look at the data, the conclusion derived from it, and test it by predictive quality. That is, how accurately does the conclusion predict what you'll find when you look through large amounts of data, when we consider means.
I meant to put this into my last to Idol, but for those who are curious this should help explain a few terms better than I would if I tried an illustration on the point:
The p-value for each term tests the null hypothesis (a hypothesis running contrary to our hypothesis/assumption about say, more or fewer calories leading to greater or lesser weight all other variables controlled--in this case that could read stricter gun laws have no impact on the number of fatalities by gun within the data sets) that the coefficient is equal to zero (no effect). A low p-value (< 0.05) indicates that you can reject the null hypothesis. ... Typically, you use the coefficient p-values to determine which terms to keep in the regression model.
I was trying to come up with a simple step by step illustration, but I'm tired and it's needless, supra.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
When my governor rammed the NYSAFE-ACT through the legislature in the middle of the night, the bill they passed targeted such features as bayonet lugs, accessory mounting rails, the color black...
Then why on Earth would you say that he spoke without giving a demonstration of why it's so.
It's like you read what he said and just ignored it.
In relation to friction.
lain:What is wrong with you? Did you just need more words?
That's racist!