New study, more guns = LESS safe

[her209]

By Captain Obvious

Yesterday I placed my Nuclear Weapon, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.

After 10 hours, I checked on the Nuclear Weapon. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented.

Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous Nuclear Weapons are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing Nuclear Weapon or I'm in possession of the laziest Nuclear Weapon in the world.

/yawn

:thumbsup:

 

[BoberFett]

This is exactly the sort of asinine understanding of science I expect from a Republican. Again, completely ignoring control data from states that didn't pass the law that Missouri did.

You're a fucking buffoon.

 

[theeedude]

You're a fucking buffoon.

As opposed to a "scientist" like yourself :biggrin:

 

[BoberFett]

As opposed to a "scientist" like yourself :biggrin:

Why do you include the Antarctic penguin population numbers, as long you're randomly deciding what statistics contribute to you completely incorrect hypothesis.

nonsenseamp: "DERP! If I keep saying the word science enough, they'll believe I know what I'm talking about!"

Following the change in Missouri's gun laws, none of the states bordering Missouri experienced significant increases in murder rates and the U.S. murder rate actually declined by over five percent.

As my graph shows, Missouri did not experience a significant increase to it's murder rate either. You're using non-existent data (an increased murder rate) to prove your hypothesis.

 

[theeedude]

Why do you include the Antarctic penguin population numbers, as long you're randomly deciding what statistics contribute to you completely incorrect hypothesis.

nonsenseamp: "DERP! If I keep saying the word science enough, they'll believe I know what I'm talking about!"



As my graph shows, Missouri did not experience a significant increase to it's murder rate either. You're using non-existent data (an increased murder rate) to prove your hypothesis.

Ah you got a graph, well, that proves it, you must be a scientist then. :biggrin:

 

[BoberFett]

Ah you got a graph, well, that proves it, you must be a scientist then. :biggrin:

Is that really the best you've got? I have facts. You have... emoticons?

By all means, keep doubling down on stupidity. Everyone here is laughing at you.

 

[theeedude]

Is that really the best you've got? I have facts. You have... emoticons?

By all means, keep doubling down on stupidity. Everyone here is laughing at you.

You don't have all the facts. You don't even have a basic understanding of science, like the control group. If you did, you would know that one graph is not enough. So with that said, here are some things that are easier for your level of intellect to understand:
:biggrin::whiste:😛🙄😳😎

 

[rudeguy]

You don't have all the facts. You don't even have a basic understanding of science, like the control group. If you did, you would know that one graph is not enough. So with that said, here are some things that are easier for your level of intellect to understand:
:biggrin::whiste:😛🙄😳😎

You are telling him that he doesn't have the facts but you are arguing for a study that isn't even released!

Again I ask....Can you actually see the inside of your belly button with your head all the way up there?

 

[theeedude]

You are telling him that he doesn't have the facts but you are arguing for a study that isn't even released!

Well, he's the one trying to disprove a study that hasn't been released yet.

Again I ask....Can you actually see the inside of your belly button with your head all the way up there?

Thanks for conceding the argument.:thumbsup:

 

[Venix]

Well, he's the one trying to disprove a study that hasn't been released yet.

No, he's disproving statements made by the study's author. The author wrote that "coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri." The data shows that claim to be factually incorrect.

Whether there are an additional 60 annual murders is slightly harder to disprove. Despite an upward trend starting in the early 2000's, perhaps murders would have magically dropped by 60 deaths in 2008+ if this law had not been passed. But that seems rather unlikely.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

How much of this is due to the economic downturn that occurred at the same time as the law change?

 

[Svnla]

If you think by having gun(s) = less safe for you, then DO NOT have them and let people (not criminals/crazies/insanes) that do want to have them have the freedom to do so.

No one is putting a gun on your head to make you get a gun.

 

[Incorruptible]

If you think by having gun(s) = less safe for you, then DO NOT have them and let people that do want to have them have the freedom to do so.

Agree with this, Why can't those idiots respect the Constitution?

 

[rudeguy]

If you think by having gun(s) = less safe for you, then DO NOT have them and let people (not criminals/crazies/insanes) that do want to have them have the freedom to do so.

No one is putting a gun on your head to make you get a gun.

And since they are supposedly used more on the owner than bad guys, you should put up a sign in your yard advertising that you don't have guns.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Well, he's the one trying to disprove a study that hasn't been released yet.

Which means you both are being ridiculous.

Way to make an argument out of nothing to argue about 🙄

 

[JEDIYoda]

By Captain Obvious

Yesterday I placed my Nuclear Weapon, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.

After 10 hours, I checked on the Nuclear Weapon. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented.

Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous Nuclear Weapons are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing Nuclear Weapon or I'm in possession of the laziest Nuclear Weapon in the world.

/yawn

You do realize how idiotic this makes you look!
so we are in complete agreement....what matters is the person who is going to purchase or steal the said weapon and their intent?
"yawn"

 

[shortylickens]

the OP has no study to link to, so it can't dispute anything.

This thread might as well be about pudding.

I love pudding.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Ah you got a graph, well, that proves it, you must be a scientist then

yep without a graph he is a wanna be scientist!! The graph makes him official!!..lol

 

[theeedude]

No, he's disproving statements made by the study's author. The author wrote that "coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri." The data shows that claim to be factually incorrect.

Whether there are an additional 60 annual murders is slightly harder to disprove. Despite an upward trend starting in the early 2000's, perhaps murders would have magically dropped by 60 deaths in 2008+ if this law had not been passed. But that seems rather unlikely.

Actually the data shows that it is factually correct. Missouri murder rate increased from 6.5 per 100,000 in 2007 to 7.7 in 2008 after the law was passed, so it is an absolute fact that: "coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri."
Nothing disproving the author's statement has been demonstrated.

 

[theeedude]

I mean if Missourians want to get more of themselves dead, it is their right, I just want to make sure our policy makers in CA are watching and drawing appropriate conclusions from Missouri's experiment.

 

[rommelrommel]

Actually the data shows that it is factually correct. Missouri murder rate increased from 6.5 per 100,000 in 2007 to 7.7 in 2008 after the law was passed, so it is an absolute fact that: "coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri."
Nothing disproving the author's statement has been demonstrated.

Well, this part is pretty dubious:

"This study is compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence," said Prof Webster.

 

[theeedude]

Well, this part is pretty dubious:

"This study is compelling confirmation that weaknesses in firearm laws lead to deaths from gun violence," said Prof Webster.

Maybe, maybe not. We'll have to see the study. But the other statement about a coincident immediate upper trajectory is a proven fact.

 

[Venix]

Actually the data shows that it is factually correct. Missouri murder rate increased from 6.5 per 100,000 in 2007 to 7.7 in 2008 after the law was passed, so it is an absolute fact that: "coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri."
Nothing disproving the author's statement has been demonstrated.

A single data point is not a trajectory. The majority of years between 2008 and 2012 had lower homicide rates than 2007.

2004: 6.1
2005: 6.9
2006: 6.3
2007: 6.5
2008: 7.7
2009: 6.4
2010: 7.0
2011: 6.1
2012: 6.4

That's effectively flat with a single aberration, not upward. The average murder rates from the four years preceding and following 2008 are identical. Calling this data an "upward trajectory" is disingenuous no matter how hard you try to spin it.

 

[rommelrommel]

Maybe, maybe not. We'll have to see the study. But the other statement about a coincident immediate upper trajectory is a proven fact.

Sure, there was a 1 year immediate upper trajectory. 2009, 2011, and 2012 were totally insignificant changes. 2008 and 2010 showed some increase.

Annual murders:

1999 - 359
2000 - 347
2001 - 372
2002 - 331
2003 - 289
2004 - 354
2005 - 402
2006 - 368
2007 - 385 <- law change
2008 - 456
2009 - 387
2010 - 420
2011 - 366
2012 - 389

As said, correlation does not prove causation and a disinterested scientist would not draw conclusions like he has. I don't see much statistical significance in a one year 15% swing. And, even if it's significant there are a lot of other economic (and other) factors at play.

 

[JEDIYoda]

By Captain Obvious

Yesterday I placed my Nuclear Weapon, and noticing it had no legs, placed it in a wheelchair to help it get around. I left it alone and went about my business.

While I was gone, the mailman delivered my mail, the boy across the street picked up my yard, a girl walked her dog down the street, and quite a few cars stopped at the stop sign near my house.

After 10 hours, I checked on the Nuclear Weapon. It was still sitting in the wheelchair. It had not rolled outside and It had not killed anyone in spite of many opportunities that had been presented.

Can you imagine how surprised I was with all the hype about how dangerous Nuclear Weapons are and how they kill people? Either the media is wrong and the killing is by people misusing Nuclear Weapon or I'm in possession of the laziest Nuclear Weapon in the world.

you know why it did not go off? Because it all has to do with the individual.....not the nuclear weapon!