New Zealand gunmen kill 49 people at two mosques

[ok doser]

Why wouldn't you want to be prepared to defend your neighbor, whom you're supposed to love, if ever they are attacked by a murderer or rapist in your presence, when you're in a position to help them? You'd rather think something unjustifiable and wrong like, "Jesus doesn't tell us to pack heat?" :freak:

He wandered the dusty roads of the Holy Land with His apostles carrying swords

i'm thinking they would have left them behind if they hadn't thought they might need them

 

[chair]

It would appear that based on the data, America would rank last in terms of its approach concerning guns in society that New Zealand would want to follow!

Correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. In fact, with the exception of the US, there doesn't even seem to be a real correlation. It is very hard to sort out social issues like this. To me one thing is clear: there is something horribly wrong in US society.

 

[ok doser]

Correlation doesn't necessarily prove causation. In fact, with the exception of the US, there doesn't even seem to be a real correlation. It is very hard to sort out social issues like this. To me one thing is clear: there is something horribly wrong in US society.

Negroes

And the liberals who don't care about them

 

[Idolater]

The more you push this narrative, the more you are going to be asked to justify it with a rigorous analysis.

Neither of those claims are true. You presented NH and suggested a rule. That's like saying it's raining today at your house so it must be raining, on average, everywhere else.

Actually what I did was turn your own reasoning right around on you and shot you with it. I shot you with your own gun.

You're only a doctor of law, so bear with me. I'm not a doctor of the philosophy of statistics, but I learned from a doctor of the philosophy of statistics, and have also read about a dozen different statistics texts. I'm a competent practitioner, but not a doctor, so I'm not sure that I'll be able to instruct you beyond stating as plainly as I can where your statistical reasoning is wrong.

Statistics in a way can be said to rest upon the 'null hypothesis.' Every statistical analysis begins with the null hypothesis, which in the example of two sets of matched data, is that the data are random and uncorrelated. The data that I have is from 172 countries, with murder rates, civilian gun ownership, population, and land area (for calculating population density), all from non partisan sources.

When we consider the matched data of number of civilian owned guns per country, and murder rates in those countries, the null hypothesis is not denied, which means that the number of civilian owned guns has Nothing to do with murder rate. That's what the null hypothesis means.

Your claim is that more gun control will lead to fewer murders. I reasonably interpret gun control as the inverse of civilian owned guns per capita, since the logical extrapolation of gun control is fewer guns in the hands of civilians.

Then you contend that it's not the number of guns, but the type of guns, that leads to more murder. So I proffer New Hampshire as a counter point. Then you accuse me of cherry picking data, but the reality is that New Hampshire positively denies your claim. I can say this definitively because population density also has no correlation to murder rate; the null hypothesis is not denied in that statistical analysis either, so the claim that New Hampshire is an outlier because of its lower population density is also therefore wrong. New Hampshire is a perfectly good and valid statistical sample to serve as an example in order to instruct you.

New Hampshire is awash in precisely the weapons that you wish to ban. Furthermore as I've pointed out, in New Hampshire the police will not bother you for merely carrying around an assault weapon openly as you go about your business, nor a handgun or handguns, carried in a holster, or carrying concealed. You don't need a permit or license in New Hampshire to carry guns however you'd like to do it.

And the murder rate in New Hampshire is not only the lowest in the United States of America, but its murder rate rivals the safest of our western industrialized democracy cousins. New Hampshire is the safest place on the earth, iow. And New Hampshire is awash in assault weapons that can be carried openly, with maximum capacity magazines, and even with silencers, bump stocks and binary triggers.

And it is the safest place on earth.

So you're just wrong. You're a doctor of the law, and not a doctor of the philosophy of statistics. You're not even a competent practitioner.

As a parallel, a doctor of medicine, isn't therefore a doctor or a competent practitioner of any other discipline.

When you look at the states with the most gun deaths per 100k you're going to find most of them are also states with the weakest gun laws.

'Gun deaths' includes suicides. While I am against suicide, it is unjust to meddle in the gun market (which is where innocent people get their guns) to lower suicides. While suicides voluntarily commit suicide, we all possess the inalienable right to defend ourselves and our neighbors and loved ones from attempted murderers and rapists, and whether or not suicides commit suicide is no reason to endanger the lives of innocent people who are not going to commit suicide.

It's a great, small state with a lower population that doesn't reflect the diversity of the larger nation in most senses. It's an outlier.

Supra.

The opposite, actually. I've done this before, set out data on states relative to their gun laws. Noted that the same thing we seen in comparing likened nations (Western Industrial democracies) holds true for states, though the impact is lesser, in part because you have contiguous states that allow for purchasing things forbidden next door. That softens the effect, but it's still impressive.

You do not understand the philosophy of statistics. You conclusion is invalid. That's not the same as wrong, but your premises do not support your conclusion.

And, supra, regarding New Hampshire.

Gun ownership isn't the issue.

In as much as more gun control leads to less civilian gun ownership, yes it is the issue.

The sorts of guns that can be owned and laws relating to their use is.

New Hampshire. Supra.

Among our close cousins, countries that are most like us, the murder rates and rates of gun violence are impressively lower than they are here, where our laws and restrictions are comparatively lax. The closer you get to our set up the higher your death by firearm and murder rate climbs.

Not even remotely true. While the matched data shows no statistically significant correlation between gun control and murder rate, if there is a correlation in there, it's that the more civilian owned guns (the less gun control), the lower the murder rate.

But that's not the argument I'm making. I'm saying the null hypothesis is not denied when comparing gun control with murder rates the world round.

And additionally, as e.g. Ok Doser has pointed out, there is a statistically significant dramatic increase in the risk that black men have of being murdered, as compared with all other demographics. In the analysis I read, whites and Latinos were not separated (Latinos are included as white), but there's every chance that the risk to Latino men is similarly statistically significantly higher than it is for white men to be murdered.

This issue has nothing to do with gun control, including the types of guns that you wish to ban. It has to do with a problem in the black and Latino communities. If we can isolate the murders committed between blacks and Latinos from the other murders, I suspect that the murder rate in the US is much closer to the murder rates in all those other Western Industrialized democracies you keep comparing us with.

 

[Idolater]

He wandered the dusty roads of the Holy Land with His apostles carrying swords

i'm thinking they would have left them behind if they hadn't thought they might need them

There is nothing Christlike about sitting on your hands while your neighbor, whom you're supposed to love, is raped or murdered or both.

Nothing.

 

[Idolater]

i prefer taxis

I've made a decision. I'm just going to call things '666' when what I've previously meant is some form of the '-ubar' word, or the R word. We'll see how it goes.

 

[ok doser]

:thumb:

 

[chair]

Negroes

And the liberals who don't care about them

You seem to be a gentleman with simple explanations for complex problems. Do you have a simple solution for this as well?

 

[ok doser]

You seem to be a gentleman with simple explanations for complex problems. Do you have a simple solution for this as well?

get rid of the negroes? :idunno:

 

[ok doser]

and the liberals, of course :banana:

 

[Idolater]

much lower black and hispanic populations as well, very much less problems with drugs and gangs

Opioids know no boundaries wrt New Hampshire. Same problem there as in many other states nowadays.

btw - service rifles and carbines?

that's exactly what the founding fathers were talking about

an armed citizenry experienced with military weaponry

Correct. If we're going to obey the Constitution, then we can't meddle in gun markets = can't harass gun dealers from selling service rifles and carbines to innocent civilians.

The Colonials kept and bore the very same weapons that the British soldiers did. Today, those weapons are called service rifles and carbines. In the US, that's the M-16 and M-4.

Semiautomatic clones are strictly for civilian use. They wouldn't even exist if it weren't for Unconstitutional meddling in gun markets.

 

[Idolater]

New Zealand's response to the murder of 50 unarmed people? Disarm thousands more.

That's 666.

 

[chair]

get rid of the negroes? :idunno:

Who qualifies as a "negro"? What do you propose to do with them?

 

[ok doser]

Who qualifies as a "negro"? What do you propose to do with them?

the ones who turn white seem worth keeping - how about working to turn them all white?

 

[chair]

the ones who turn white seem worth keeping - how about working to turn them all white?

You seem to confuse skin color with socioeconomic class.

 

[ok doser]

You seem to confuse skin color with socioeconomic class.

Doesn't have anything to do with skin color, it's all about values, morality and culture

 

[chair]

Doesn't have anything to do with skin color, it's all about values, morality and culture

...and yet you used the term "negro"...

 

[ok doser]

that's 'cause negro culture apparently encourages killing other negroes

at least more so than others in the us

if we wanted a better model to follow than white, substitute asian

 

[chair]

that's 'cause negro culture apparently encourages killing other negroes

at least more so than others in the us

if we wanted a better model to follow than white, substitute asian

Here you go again, using "negro" to mean a type of culture, when the term is a racial one related to skin color.

 

[ok doser]

Do you believe that the wildly disproportionate rates of negroes murdering other negroes is based on the color of their skin?