Guns - page 21. | Bitcointalksearch.org

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Oops. I'll take credit for that fuck-up. I should have been clearer that the following portion is what I wanted you to address, not the first part. The first part is done. .698 correlation, when you include all gun deaths, whether accidental, suicide, or as a result of violence (both in defense and as a result of attack, no less!), is simply not strong enough to show that restricting guns will reduce gun violence. Too much noise in the data, coming from all of those other deaths.

Address this, please:

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 02:24:47 AM

Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:

Quote

"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 01:19:05 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 22, 2012, 01:03:32 PM

Very clearly, when you view the data as a whole, a picture emerges. Mathematically, this was demonstrated when a correlation coefficient of 0.7 resulted.

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 02:24:47 AM

There's a trend... vaguely.

But taken together, it doesn't show a very clear correlation. Especially when you consider that the data includes all gun deaths, accidental, violent, and suicide. I'd hardly call that conclusive.

You feel like addressing this part?

I'll even go a step further: accidental, violent, suicide, and self defense.

I don't have any desire to hide data, or mislead, as demonstrated by my statement above. Furthermore, if data existed to the left of the chart, assuming even more permissive gun laws existed (such as in NAP), we might even see the formation of a bell curve.

The point is, data is data. The data does show a significant downward trend and does correlate. You can't argue that. What you can do is argue the underlying interpretation of it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 22, 2012, 01:03:32 PM

Very clearly, when you view the data as a whole, a picture emerges. Mathematically, this was demonstrated when a correlation coefficient of 0.7 resulted.

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 02:24:47 AM

There's a trend... vaguely.

But taken together, it doesn't show a very clear correlation. Especially when you consider that the data includes all gun deaths, accidental, violent, and suicide. I'd hardly call that conclusive.

You feel like addressing this part?

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 02:24:47 AM

Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:

Quote

"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 02:24:47 AM

Here's the graph... Maybe now you can see what I meant when I said "the numbers are all over the place":

More permissive<----------------------------------------------------->Less permissive

There's a trend... vaguely. But the highest data point is in the middle, and the least permissive has more gun deaths than the third most permissive, and the 9th. And all of the other top 5 least permissive states. Sure, I could slice and dice that data to show pretty much any result I wanted. But taken together, it doesn't show a very clear correlation. Especially when you consider that the data includes all gun deaths, accidental, violent, and suicide. I'd hardly call that conclusive.

Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:

Quote

"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

The data just doesn't appear to be "all over the place" as you see it.

Do you know how photography works? Please follow along. It's an excellent example of data sampling. The smaller the pixel on the sensor, and the less time the shutter is open, the more noise you get in the image. This is why small sensor cameras set at high ISO and shooting during nighttime will create a noisy image. Sampling theory explains all this. The image is there, but what happens is a reduction in the number of photons collected per pixel. Less photons per pixel will result in what appears to be randomness when you look at a small portion of the image - i.e. just a few pixels. But when you step back, a picture emerges.

Very clearly, when you view the data as a whole, a picture emerges. Mathematically, this was demonstrated when a correlation coefficient of 0.7 resulted.

Why don't you apply a running average to the data or perform some regression analysis on the data?

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: westkybitcoins on July 22, 2012, 11:37:53 AM

Quote from: vampire on July 21, 2012, 02:17:53 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 21, 2012, 01:32:13 PM

IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.

Or crime rate. Go prove me otherwise.

I repeat: look into the research done by John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." This angle of the gun issue has already been soundly analyzed.

+1...the debate has been over

westkybitcoins

legendary

Activity: 980

Merit: 1004

Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!

Quote from: vampire on July 21, 2012, 02:17:53 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 21, 2012, 01:32:13 PM

IF your chart tracked CRIME RATE, and not GUN DEATHS, I might agree with you here. But it doesn't, so I'm going to have to disagree. Gun law doesn't have any direct effect on the number of gun deaths. that's what it shows.

Or crime rate. Go prove me otherwise.

I repeat: look into the research done by John Lott, author of "More Guns, Less Crime." This angle of the gun issue has already been soundly analyzed.

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: myrkul on July 21, 2012, 01:44:02 PM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 21, 2012, 01:39:12 PM

Anyone want to graph the data on that list for FA, so he can see what I'm talking about? Apparently he doesn't understand the phrase "the numbers are all over the place" I gotta do some errands, but if it's not been done by the time I get back, I'll throw a graph together real quick.

Not certain what he meant, but lets say the difference of law between Louisiana and Mississippi could be little so on the chart they could be put closer.

Louisiana, so they only require a permit to carry guns.

Rifles and Shotguns
Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No
Handguns

Permit to purchase handgun? No
Registration of handguns? No
Licensing of owners of handguns? No
Permit to carry handguns? Yes

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grantbdev on July 22, 2012, 03:21:24 AM

Quote from: grantbdev on July 21, 2012, 06:25:31 PM

One thing I don't understand

For the record, I retract my not understanding. Sorry it offended people.

lol... for the record, I was not offended. I hope my explanation was helpful.

grantbdev

sr. member

Activity: 292

Merit: 250

Quote from: grantbdev on July 21, 2012, 06:25:31 PM

One thing I don't understand

For the record, I retract my not understanding. Sorry it offended people.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Here's the graph... Maybe now you can see what I meant when I said "the numbers are all over the place":

More permissive<----------------------------------------------------->Less permissive

There's a trend... vaguely. But the highest data point is in the middle, and the least permissive has more gun deaths than the third most permissive, and the 9th. And all of the other top 5 least permissive states. Sure, I could slice and dice that data to show pretty much any result I wanted. But taken together, it doesn't show a very clear correlation. Especially when you consider that the data includes all gun deaths, accidental, violent, and suicide. I'd hardly call that conclusive.

Tell you what: you find me data about gun crime, and I'll make another graph. If that one shows even this level of correlation, I'll eat my hat, switch positions, and start crying gun control from the rooftops. But I bet you can't.

Oh! and while I was looking up info on that data, I found this lovely little nugget:

Quote

"I am generally skeptical of gun laws," says Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA. "The theory is that gun laws may prevent crimes of passion—domestic crimes, altercations over traffic incidents, or committed by someone who is otherwise law-abiding but has an anger problem… gun-control laws can potentially do something, but the kind of crime by which they can do the least is a mass shooting."

That's from the very same article those data come from.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: myrkul on July 22, 2012, 01:01:12 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 22, 2012, 12:09:13 AM

Quote from: nimda on July 21, 2012, 06:14:18 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found the correlation coefficient of that dataset to be only 0.6986 (out of 1).

Thank you for posting this!

While it was fairly obvious that the data was heavily correlated by mere visual inspection, this confirms it. Your own interpretation (by usage of the word 'only') is of course biased.

A correlation coefficient of 0.7 is not only strong, but leans towards very strong. The Wikipedia article explains this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient

"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. A correlation of 0.9 may be very low if one is verifying a physical law using high-quality instruments, but may be regarded as very high in the social sciences where there may be a greater contribution from complicating factors."

In other words, Graph is forthcoming.

PS, re: baby stuff, False alarm. Momma and babies (twins!) are fine.

What part of the above definition regarding social sciences did you not comprehend? You can wear blinders all your life if you wish, but there's no denying significant correlation. It's obvious from just visually reading the data.

Are you not able to tally up the averages for the first 10 and last 10 in the sample set? Or perhaps the first 20 and last 20? Or perhaps the first 25 and last 25. Slice and dice it all you want. It doesn't take heavy computation to see simple correlation.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: FirstAscent on July 22, 2012, 12:09:13 AM

Quote from: nimda on July 21, 2012, 06:14:18 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found the correlation coefficient of that dataset to be only 0.6986 (out of 1).

Thank you for posting this!

While it was fairly obvious that the data was heavily correlated by mere visual inspection, this confirms it. Your own interpretation (by usage of the word 'only') is of course biased.

A correlation coefficient of 0.7 is not only strong, but leans towards very strong. The Wikipedia article explains this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient

"Several authors have offered guidelines for the interpretation of a correlation coefficient. However, all such criteria are in some ways arbitrary and should not be observed too strictly. The interpretation of a correlation coefficient depends on the context and purposes. A correlation of 0.9 may be very low if one is verifying a physical law using high-quality instruments, but may be regarded as very high in the social sciences where there may be a greater contribution from complicating factors."

In other words, Graph is forthcoming.

PS, re: baby stuff, False alarm. Momma and babies (twins!) are fine.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: nimda on July 21, 2012, 06:14:18 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found the correlation coefficient of that dataset to be only 0.6986 (out of 1).

Thank you for posting this!

While it was fairly obvious that the data was heavily correlated by mere visual inspection, this confirms it. Your own interpretation (by usage of the word 'only') is of course biased.

A correlation coefficient of 0.7 is not only strong, but leans towards very strong. The Wikipedia article explains this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_product-moment_correlation_coefficient

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: grantbdev on July 21, 2012, 06:25:31 PM

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

In that fight, it's not about winning. That's not a fight that can be won.

That fight is about making the fight expensive to continue. And basically, unless there's been a military coup or some other "It's not the US anymore" scenario, it's not worth fighting that kind of fight. The people won't be behind you, and when the media calls you a nutjob, nobody will doubt it.

nimda

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

0xFB0D8D1534241423

Quote from: grantbdev on July 21, 2012, 06:25:31 PM

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

Yeah, that worked well in the American revolution for the British, and it worked well in Afghanistan and Iraq for the Americans. The former is the very reason for the Second Amendment's existence.

vampire

hero member

Activity: 574

Merit: 500

Quote from: myrkul on July 21, 2012, 05:56:30 PM

You realize that even if you're right, that's not an argument for gun control?

PS. the graph is going to have to wait, it looks like the woman is going into labor.

Of course not. It isn't an argument for gun control. I don't want people waving guns in front of my face, but hey - that's pretty impossible in NYC. In US, I can choose where I live.

grantbdev

sr. member

Activity: 292

Merit: 250

Quote from: cryptoanarchist on July 21, 2012, 06:41:45 PM

Quote from: grantbdev on July 21, 2012, 06:25:31 PM

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

Ignored for being stupid.

I apologize for being stupid.
I am against gun control, I'm just trying to be realistic here that it is a pretty asymmetrical balance of power. Weren't tanks sent in at Waco?

cryptoanarchist

legendary

Activity: 1120

Merit: 1003

Quote from: grantbdev on July 21, 2012, 06:25:31 PM

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

Ignored for being stupid.

grantbdev

sr. member

Activity: 292

Merit: 250

One thing I don't understand is the idea many Americans have that having guns would protect them from the government. The government has more weapons, more powerful weapons (atomic bombs for that matter), more people, more skilled people, and just more access to resources. Just having a rifle would not do much good in vs. government scenarios.

nimda

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 1000

0xFB0D8D1534241423

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I've found the correlation coefficient of that dataset to be only 0.6986 (out of 1).

Topic: Guns - page 21. (Read 22182 times)