New study, more guns = LESS safe

[ivwshane]

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

Are we using anti Obama reality to answer the question or just normal reality and logic? Because the answer isn't the same.

 

[BoberFett]

Hey guys, on a side note, I threw a baseball in the air and measured it's trajectory for about two seconds. I have conclusive evidence that the ball will reach the moon in about six months. I haven't released my study yet, but don't worry, my conclusions are solid based on that two seconds worth of data.

Science, bitches.

 

[pcgeek11]

The Johns Hopkins researcher was participating in a discussion here at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

The theme was "science-based strategies for reducing gun violence".

BBC LOL I wonder if they had an agenda. See bold above.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Are we using anti Obama reality to answer the question or just normal reality and logic? Because the answer isn't the same.

Where in my post did I mention Obama much less blame him for anything?

It's a fact the economic downturn began at the same time the law changed. How many murders occurred due to people not having a job vs the law change?

 

[destey]

i dont trust the State to have more of a monopoly on firearm use than it already does. also, people will get angry and start throwing punches and daggers and shit if we dont have firearms. i mean, does anyone really think that people just wouldnt get angry and violent if the State has stolen more arms than it already has?

Agreed, I trust Joe Shmoe homeowner with guns more than I do the federal govt. Especially since the Fast and Furious / gunwalker scandal.

 

[rudeguy]

Hey guys, on a side note, I threw a baseball in the air and measured it's trajectory for about two seconds. I have conclusive evidence that the ball will reach the moon in about six months. I haven't released my study yet, but don't worry, my conclusions are solid based on that two seconds worth of data.

Science, bitches.

*mind blown*

Don't worry about releasing the study. Here's $12,000,000 in grants!

 

[QuantumPion]

This is a great example of cargo cult science.

In the South Seas there is a cargo cult of people. During the war they saw airplanes land with lots of good materials, and they want the same thing to happen now. So they've arranged to imitate things like runways, to put fires along the sides of the runways, to make a wooden hut for a man to sit in, with two wooden pieces on his head like headphones and bars of bamboo sticking out like antennas--he's the controller--and they wait for the airplanes to land. They're doing everything right. The form is perfect. It looks exactly the way it looked before. But it doesn't work. No airplanes land. So I call these things cargo cult science, because they follow all the apparent precepts and forms of scientific investigation, but they're missing something essential, because the planes don't land.

Feynman cautioned that to avoid becoming cargo cult scientists, researchers must avoid fooling themselves, be willing to question and doubt their own theories and their own results, and investigate possible flaws in a theory or an experiment. He recommended that researchers adopt an unusually high level of honesty which is rarely encountered in everyday life, and gives examples from advertising, politics, and behavioral psychology to illustrate the everyday dishonesty which should be unacceptable in science. Feynman cautions,

"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in Cargo Cult Science."

 

[Bowfinger]

This is a great example of cargo cult science.

Is it? How do you know? In what ways is this study an example of "cargo cult science?" Be specific.

LOL! Be clear, it's not just you. This whole thread is full of people pontificating for and against a study none of you have seen. It's absurd. Guys, it's OK to not have an opinion about everything. That's what critical thinking is about. The proper response to this thread should be, "Hmm. I wonder if that study has merit. I'll review it once it's published so I can form an informed opinion."

 

[Daverino]

Hey guys, on a side note, I threw a baseball in the air and measured it's trajectory for about two seconds. I have conclusive evidence that the ball will reach the moon in about six months. I haven't released my study yet, but don't worry, my conclusions are solid based on that two seconds worth of data.

Science, bitches.

No you didn't.

Throwing a ball in the air at an 20 meters per second (about 45 miles per hour), gravity would act upon the ball for two seconds, decelerating it at 9.81m/s^2. You would have observed the ball decelerating rapidly to the point of being almost still at the end of the two seconds. If the ball were to reach the moon it must, at minimum, maintain a constant velocity. If you concluded that the ball will reach the moon, you have not collected accurate data or have simply made up an erroneous conclusion.

You suck at science, as expected.

 

[bshole]

No you didn't.

Throwing a ball in the air at an 20 meters per second (about 45 miles per hour), gravity would act upon the ball for two seconds, decelerating it at 9.81m/s^2. You would have observed the ball decelerating rapidly to the point of being almost still at the end of the two seconds. If the ball were to reach the moon it must, at minimum, maintain a constant velocity. If you concluded that the ball will reach the moon, you have not collected accurate data or have simply made up an erroneous conclusion.

You suck at science, as expected.

LOL.... ownage......

 

[rudeguy]

No you didn't.

Throwing a ball in the air at an 20 meters per second (about 45 miles per hour), gravity would act upon the ball for two seconds, decelerating it at 9.81m/s^2. You would have observed the ball decelerating rapidly to the point of being almost still at the end of the two seconds. If the ball were to reach the moon it must, at minimum, maintain a constant velocity. If you concluded that the ball will reach the moon, you have not collected accurate data or have simply made up an erroneous conclusion.

You suck at science, as expected.

Those concerns are addressed in the study. How can you possibly question the facts of his study? You have never even read the study!

(Do you see how pointless the article and this thread are?)

 

[QuantumPion]

If you concluded that the ball will reach the moon, you have not collected accurate data or have simply made up an erroneous conclusion.

Wow...

 

[TerryMathews]

No you didn't.

Throwing a ball in the air at an 20 meters per second (about 45 miles per hour), gravity would act upon the ball for two seconds, decelerating it at 9.81m/s^2. You would have observed the ball decelerating rapidly to the point of being almost still at the end of the two seconds. If the ball were to reach the moon it must, at minimum, maintain a constant velocity. If you concluded that the ball will reach the moon, you have not collected accurate data or have simply made up an erroneous conclusion.

You suck at science, as expected.

Sounds like someone failed to comprehend the point.

 

[Daverino]

Sounds like someone failed to comprehend the point.

Oh I got the point. His point was that by collecting only two seconds of data he can conclude that the ball is going to the moon. So he was being snarky about how collecting data for short time spans in a longitudinal study can lead to erroneous conclusions.

But then he fucks his own joke because he doesn't have a high school understanding of physics. And if he doesn't understand high school physics I am CERTAIN he does not know enough statistics to understand how validity in a time-series study is established.

Therefore he sucks at a lot of science. And sucks badly.

 

[TerryMathews]

Oh I got the point. His point was that by collecting only two seconds of data he can conclude that the ball is going to the moon. So he was being snarky about how collecting data for short time spans in a longitudinal study can lead to erroneous conclusions.

But then he fucks his own joke because he doesn't have a high school understanding of physics. And if he doesn't understand high school physics I am CERTAIN he does not know enough statistics to understand how validity in a time-series study is established.

Therefore he sucks at a lot of science. And sucks badly.

So rather than address his point you found it more productive to tear down his analogy. Got it.

 

[Daverino]

So rather than address his point you found it more productive to tear down his analogy. Got it.

Yeah. It's a shitty analogy that shows a basic lack of common sense, intelligence and understanding of science, data and observation.

Believe me, if I couldn't tell you the difference between a clip and a magazine, you can and SHOULD freely ignore me in any gun related threads.

 

[TerryMathews]

Believe me, if I couldn't tell you the difference between a clip and a magazine, you can and SHOULD freely ignore me in any gun related threads.

I'm going to save this because there are a lot of people who claim we are being overly pedantic when we complain about Congressmen making mistakes like that.

 

[rudeguy]

Yeah. It's a shitty analogy that shows a basic lack of common sense, intelligence and understanding of science, data and observation.

Believe me, if I couldn't tell you the difference between a clip and a magazine, you can and SHOULD freely ignore me in any gun related threads.

You didn't answer me.

How can you fault his study when you haven't read his study? Your concerns are addressed in the study.

 

[Daverino]

You didn't answer me.

How can you fault his study when you haven't read his study? Your concerns are addressed in the study.

You have me confused on this one.

My impression is that the Hopkins study hasn't been released yet. Did I miss a link for it?

 

[BoberFett]

Don't worry guys, Daverino being a nutty gun grabber is just vocalizing his pre-butthurt, knowing that the OP's "study" will be debunked within minutes of it being released.

And Daverino, how can you possibly argue with my results? I saw an immediate trajectory increase in the baseball after I threw it. And as we all know, just as with this gun study, immediate trajectory is everything. Watching for deceleration due to gravity or future decreases in gun violence goes against the hypothesis, so we're ignoring them. That's just good science.

 

[TerryMathews]

You have me confused on this one.

My impression is that the Hopkins study hasn't been released yet. Did I miss a link for it?

God youre dense. You can't see these posters are regurgitating the same posts that some others here used to defend this alleged study?

 

[HumblePie]

Don't worry guys, Daverino being a nutty gun grabber is just vocalizing his pre-butthurt, knowing that the OP's "study" will be debunked within minutes of it being released.

And Daverino, how can you possibly argue with my results? I saw an immediate trajectory increase in the baseball after I threw it. And as we all know, just as with this gun study, immediate trajectory is everything. Watching for deceleration due to gravity or future decreases in gun violence goes against the hypothesis, so we're ignoring them. That's just good science.

No he's a troll in every other thread. Just don't feed him anymore.

 

[Daverino]

Don't worry guys, Daverino being a nutty gun grabber is just vocalizing his pre-butthurt, knowing that the OP's "study" will be debunked within minutes of it being released.

And Daverino, how can you possibly argue with my results? I saw an immediate trajectory increase in the baseball after I threw it. And as we all know, just as with this gun study, immediate trajectory is everything. Watching for deceleration due to gravity or future decreases in gun violence goes against the hypothesis, so we're ignoring them. That's just good science.

No. You didn't see an immediate 'increase in trajectory.' A trajectory is a path. In the case of a baseball thrown from your hand under the force of gravity it is parabolic. Assuming no other force acted upon the baseball, the baseball's trajectory would not change after you threw it. That is basic physics.

Gravity is an instantaneous force. It acted immediately upon the baseball. There was no point after leaving your hand that the ball was not decelerating. Based on your description you could not observe the baseball maintaining a constant velocity or accelerating at any point. Again, basic physics.

I argue with your results because you don't have a primitive grasp of Newtonian physics or gravity.

As for the yet-to-be released study, I haven't read it so I won't comment on it. But I will wager that math and science, being hard and all, it will not be easily debunkable with anecdotal evidence if it passed peer review. And if it is debunked, I will wager it will be done by someone who passed high school physics.

And for those of you who are struggling with seeing an unchanged murder rate in Missouri and feel that that, in and of itself, is evidence that the rate of murder is constant:

Let's suppose I had a baseball, held it up in the air and let go. Let's further suppose that the baseball does not move. It just hovers there. It has a velocity of zero. Is the baseball accelerating?

 

[Daverino]

No he's a troll in every other thread. Just don't feed him anymore.

I'm certain that everyone who disagrees with you is a troll in your mind. It must be tough living in a world where most every other sentient creature is trolling you.

 

[Venix]

Is it? How do you know? In what ways is this study an example of "cargo cult science?" Be specific.

LOL! Be clear, it's not just you. This whole thread is full of people pontificating for and against a study none of you have seen. It's absurd. Guys, it's OK to not have an opinion about everything. That's what critical thinking is about. The proper response to this thread should be, "Hmm. I wonder if that study has merit. I'll review it once it's published so I can form an informed opinion."

The thread has largely been about the author's assertion that "coincident exactly with the policy change, there was an immediate upward trajectory to the homicide rates in Missouri." Missouri's homicide rates are already available, and analysis shows his claim to be extremely misleading at best, if it's not a blatant lie.

Maybe the study is valid despite the author's bullshitting ahead of its release, and despite his history of regurgitating gun control talking points and calling them science. But probably not.