Well clearly tighter gun controls would have nothing to do with it. The highest crime rate is in DC.

 

You'd have to read the study, like I mentioned: I don't think any possible Influence has a 100% Positive or 100% Negative association/correlation; means you have to include more than one area (State)/one piece of data.

 

Reading the "study" is pointless. From everything contained in the article posted, it's clear that the author is using just the statistics that will come to his preconceived conclusion. It's as agenda driven as the articles you continually post.

And what about gun control? As of July 29 of last year, Arizona became one of only three states that allows its citizens to carry concealed weapons without a permit. Might tighter gun control laws make a difference? Our analysis suggests that they do.

^^^
This is the only point of the "study". Use a bunch of selective statistics to justify that conclusion - and of course to also suggest that voting Republican kills people.

Give me a break. I think you need to be a little more subtle if you're going to continue to try and get people on a pro-gun, pro-self-defense forum to willing call for the government to confiscate all of our weapons.

 

Reading the "study" is pointless. From everything contained in the article posted, it's clear that the author is using just the statistics that will come to his preconceived conclusion. It's as agenda driven as the articles you continually post.



^^^
This is the only point of the "study". Use a bunch of selective statistics to justify that conclusion - and of course to also suggest that voting Republican kills people.

Give me a break. I think you need to be a little more subtle if you're going to continue to try and get people on a pro-gun, pro-self-defense forum to willing call for the government to confiscate all of our weapons.

I don't know the author(s) but I didn't get the feeling he was "out" after anything, and I haven't read scientific or statistical criticism of the study. I don't want to confiscate any weapons, that would mean I'd want my own confiscated, the ones I Carry and the ones I don't. The study has no statements direct or implied about confiscating guns - nor do those who conducted it come up with one but several influences that have a high association with gun deaths. And it's pointed out out more than once that associations are not causes though they can suggest, but not prove, some. For none does is there any suggestion of policy/remedy. And last, it's all pubic data, not exactly State Secrets. So, you're making the claim of selective/false data. What is that based on? (Especially since you state "reading it is pointless" so perhaps you didn't read it.) You may be right but you'd need to show some evidence to substantiate it. Like I said it's public info.

If out of the 4 or 5 highest associations you hate one of them - well, that's your opinion.

To quote something said recently: "Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but not to his or her facts".

So, it's one or the other with your claims.

 

**Moved to General Firearms**


As for the article, what's the point? Less guns = less gun deaths? Gotcha' just like you see less automobile fatalities where they don't have cars.

Not exactly a shocker there.

Note that these figures include accidental shootings, suicides, even acts of self-defense, as well as crimes

 

The point was what I said - and what they said. I don't think any of the major associations were shockers either - pretty logical. Or that the ones that weren't associated weren't. Also seems pretty logical. Too bad there's so much arguing about a good number of them.

 

The DC has 21.7 per 100,000 well for crying out loud that just SHOCKS me. :blink:

GIGO. :image035:

 

The DC has 21.7 per 1,000 well for crying out loud that just SHOCKS me. :blink:

GIGO. :image035:

Yeah, that one I thought it would, real bad areas around the famous ones there, I know people who live or lived in DC - some of the other states though surprised me too. All public info though.

 

"Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but to his or her facts".

"but NOT to his or her facts" Facts are facts.

 

Exactly

 

Wikipedia says Richard Florida is an "urban studies theorist," and his web site says he's a cartographer.

Simply making color-coded maps about where gun deaths occur is misleading. He does "qualify" his data by saying it includes ALL deaths by firearm, but it's being presented in the context of gun control possibly "making a difference." What ISN'T spelled out is that a huge number of gun deaths (for example, here in Arizona) are related to criminal activity - good guys, bad guys, cops alike. It would be far more revealing and conducive to an intelligent debate to show deaths due to criminal activity separated out from gun deaths by accident and suicide.

 

The only thing the numbers prove is that the larger the group of people together, the higher the "gun death" rate. Which has been the strongest correlation for decades now.

Tough or light gun laws, it does not matter. More people equates to more violence in almost all cases. Weapon type matters not.

Some of the fuedal lords in Japan banned swords back in the day for the same reason people want to control guns today. They fear those wielding them that are not controlled by them. A story as old as humanity.

 

Richard Florida is an "urban studies theorist," and his web site says he's a cartographer.

Is this correct? Not even a statistician?

That is a trashcrapdogsmashinyourface title for sure. Yea, I give Mr. Urban Studies Theorist high marks. Right.

It takes an Epidemiologist (A Ph.D) with a couple of decades of experience to really filter data.

An Urban Studies Theorist :rofl:

Let's all give the Atlantic HIGH MARKS for publishing his trash too? I think not, just for forgetting to do some due diligence?

New headlines:

Drowning caused by water <gasp>

Car accidents involve cars <gasp>

Spare me.

Richard Florida (born 1957 in Newark, New Jersey) is an American urban studies theorist. Florida's focus is on social and economic theory. He is currently a professor and head of the Martin Prosperity Institute at the Rotman School of Management at the University of Toronto.[1]
Prof. Florida received a PhD from Columbia University in 1986. Prior to joining George Mason University's School of Public Policy, where he spent two years, he taught at Carnegie Mellon University's Heinz College in Pittsburgh from 1987 to 2005. He was named a Senior Editor at The Atlantic in March 2011 after serving as a correspondent for TheAtlantic.com for a year.[2]

Florida's theories are the source of both praise and controversy. Florida's ideas have been criticized from a variety of political perspectives and by both academics and journalists. His theories have been criticized as being elitist, and his data have been questioned.[3] Researchers have also criticized Florida's work for its methodology. Terry Nichols Clark (University of Chicago) has used Florida's own data-sets to question the correlation between the presence of significant numbers of gay men in a city and the presence of high-technology knowledge industries. [4] Harvard economist Edward Glaeser performed statistical regressions on Florida's data sets and came up with a similar critique, contending that educational levels rather than the presence of bohemians or gay people is correlated with metropolitan economic development.[5] Other critics have said that the conditions it describes may no longer exist, and that his theories may be better suited to politics, rather than economics.[6] Florida has gone on to directly reply to a number of these objections.[7][2]

Well, he does have some bona fides, mainly an ability to self-promote, but a Ph.D from Columbia is no sneezing matter, even for a elitist. :rofl:

I correct myself, and don't really care. :rofl:

 

FROM OP:

Haven't read many posts, it's late, but a heads up: the first few reacted as if this was an editorial polemic for gun regulations. It's study of associations based on data, or another way of saying that: the experiences of many. I saw no scientist or statistician finding problems with methods or data, which is Public, after all, you wouldn't need Sherlock Homes to spot major errors.
It has no special focus on gun regulations. A list of discussion points on what caused the violence in AZ and likely was thought the same in Colorado since the study was re-published, lists several causes put forward: gun regulations are last.

Out of 20 or more factors possibly associated with gun-deaths, only 2 or 3 have anything to do with gun regulations, 18 or more don’t, or 85% - 90%.
The factors that had a high association with gun-deaths included gun-regulations but 4 or 5 others also, and all were stated just as a list, gun regs 20% - 25% of it. No focus was aimed on any, no conclusions were drawn including that association proved causation instead of just indicating a suggestion of it, no policy was offered, nothing: it is what is: a study of associations among which gun regs are one of many.

If you see nothing but gun-control, confiscating guns and all that here, you've got gun-control-colored glasses on, a fixation, like any belief everything is about poverty, or education or "a sense of well-being". If you have one of those you're in a population that would know least about whichever one it was - for fixation only sees a mirror, which reflects back the fixation and strengthens it as well as more and more strengthening the conviction that one is RIGHT.

It's nice feeling that Right about something - or everything - but at the end of the day you don't know much.

 

Pause, take a deep breath...

Clue for the day: Correlation does not equal causation. For example: High vitamin D levels are correlated with skin cancer. But, one doesn't cause the other; both are caused by exposure to ultra violet light.

It is a common error to assume that a correlation is a sign that one variable 'causes' the other. You will never find a perfect 1.0 correlation between two social variables. If that's what you are looking for, you will be eternally disappointed. Correlations about 0.7 are really pretty good and account for half the variability in the associated variables. The other half can be due to measurement error, or some other factor.

A statistically significant correlation is one that has a less than 5% chance of being erroneous or equal to zero. The larger the size of your sample (e.g. 1000 observations vs. 100) the lower the correlation can be and still be statistically significant. That is, a correlation of 0.2 might be 'significant' if you studied 1000 people but not if there were only 100 in the study. Even then, it would only account for 4% of the variation (leaving 96% unexplained). Before you go legislating or making other decisions on data, you really need to know what the data say.

 

Statistics are never complete. They never consider ALL factors. Certain areas (states) also attract certain types of people. The demographics of the state population would probably show more than the geographics of a state. On our side of the game (I am a ccw and hunter) we also skew our data. All of our one shot stop data is based only on one stop incidents. Based on this we have built a culture of "Caliber Religion" and dependence on certain calibers of handguns. None of those statistics included how many times the one shot didn't stop the target or the shooting wasn't even reported. It also did not include multiple shot stops by caliber, which is actually much closer to SD reality. Even though the basic method may have been sound, the data is still speculative because all pertinent data was not included. Statistics give us a "ball park" assumption to start from, but they do not prove anything.

Nothing irritates a true student of science more than to hear the phrase "Scientists have proven......" because nothing is proven, not even by experiment. The best we can say is" it appears that ...... occurs in relationship to ......"

Statistics are not facts. They are just numbers and you need to know on what data they were based.

The study is valid, but it cannot be used to make any positive remarks or negative remarks about gun control. It again just shows a mathematical correlation of some data, not proofs of anything. In true science this data would be expanded to include more types of data, and then it would still only be a mathematical correlation, a bit more sound, but still not conclusive.

 

If all gun-related deaths are lumped together, the "study" doesn't really tell us anything of importance. It would need to be broken out by category to glean anything of significance from it.

 

Good point. One recent report showed that justifiable shootings were up in states with SYG. That was true.
Another study showed that Romneycare increased the number of visits to emergency Departments. Also true.

Interesting to note, however, that although romneycare ED visits went up, the number of ED visits in adjoining states that DID NOT have Romneycare also went up by the same amount. I guess Romneycare didn't cause the change.

And, with regard to justifiable homicides, civilian and LEO rates BOTH went up by the same amount.... I guess it wasn't SYG...

 

Lumping in suicides really makes no sense. Suicides are not pertinent to the data set. People who are willing to shoot themselves would be likely to use some other method to kill themselves. People who actually commit suicide are willing to do whatever it takes because they truly don't believe they can live in this world.

Let's face it, when someone commits suicide by hanging no one says we should ban whatever was used to hang the person. If someone commits suicide by gun, the same view should be held in regards to the tool used.