Muwhuohoh! Did AntiFa just EARN that Terrorist Ranking?
Originally posted by Emperordmb
You realize if he is actually getting picked apart here (which I don't agree with)... this undercuts the left's delusional shrieking about guns even more... right?
Which means if the left truly cared about saving lives they'd be pro 2nd amendment. They'd also shut up about Australia.
No, the first thing I said was to quote your question, then point out the fact that your question is no where in the survey and it is not there directly or implicitly. You were caught lying about survey questions to bolster your poor position.There's nothing left to talk about on this. I'll be ignoring any further attempts you try to save face on this: you have no face left to save.
If you were trying to say that the survey's questions precluded the idea of a suspicious noise, you did a miserable job of doing such. The only argument you provided was that suspicious noises were not directly asked about. But again they don't have to be, because that never was my argument. Using a gun in self-defense does not preclude the idea of unholstering a gun after hearing a suspicious noise. I have not seen a single criminologist dispute this fact.
None of them are making arguments about people who committed crimes, did not get caught, and avoided seeking medical attention.Odd, it's as if they are sampling a completely different data set than the one I'm referring to...
You still do not comprehend what we are talking about. Sorry, man...I won't entertain your idiocy any longer. You're literally too stupid to continue a conversation with.
Go ahead, tell me about those surveys of people who fess up to committing crimes and got injured while doing it.
Again the flaw here is obvious. The criminals who are in jail are NOT there due to them going to the hospital; therefore this argument is not valid. Being caught for a crime, which is unrelated to hospitalization, does not affect their testimony, You've yet to explain why it does.
1. Correlation, causation, etc. It can be a correlation that they are measuring, but not necessarily the direct causation. This is a massive duh and is unnecessary to even discuss.2. An ignorant person does not know what they are ignorant of especially when their ignorance is obvious such as your case.
3. It was. And I've already pointed out the reason that this is the explicit dataset we would be excluding. Got back and look at my original point that you've missed for the 5th time.
1. WTF, how does that relate to my point at all. I simply noted the fact that your counter did not address the initial point. In your counter, you purported that the criminals were incarcerated BECAUSE of their crimes.
2.Great argument, bud.
3. WE AREN'T EXCLUDING A DATASET. THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT IN JAIL DUE TO THEIR HOSPITALIZATION. Stop trying to fit a square peg through a triangle hole. It's funny because there are legitimate problems with this study, but you aren't mentioning them.
You don't need to quote my words back to me. But responding to me as such, you've indicated, yet again, that you don't know what we are talking about.If you had understood where you went wrong, you'd understand that the 15k number needs to be grossly inflated multiple times over because of obvious things you missed.
I am perfectly aware that the 15k figure is uber underinflated, I even stated as such. But, you claimed that when responding to my post you were that I made a typo. But, you weren't. And your response here indicates as such. When looking at violent DGUs, why is this figure incorrect? You don't name a single another variable which effects it validity.
The YouTube video did a great job discussing this topic with sources I had not found, prior.
You are a horrible researcher, this is DGU 101.
Then he goes on to mention the CDC's own research where they corroborate Kleck's and Gertz findings but to a slightly lesser degree. Kleck had it around 1.3% and CDC was knocking on the door of just 1%.
The CDC is conducting a survey and thusly still possess all of the problems previously mentioned and this doesn't explain the discrpency between the 15,000 figure and 217,000. Additionally, most surveys on this topic don't corroborate Kleck's data.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Whole lotta the same bullshit that will be ignored.
You still don't understand the point even after explaining it to you 6 times, now. So you won't get another reply on it.
Find me the data set of people that were not incarcerated, were injured during the commission of a crime, and did not seek medical help. Otherwise, it shows a sampling bias and confirms there is a correlation (but not necessarily causation) of medical treatment for gunshots and incarceration.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
You are a horrible researcher, this is DGU 101.
It's not. The CDC figures were not really well known. And I had not seen the very well done breakdown by Forbes on this subject until that video brought it to my attention. You took a lighthearted statement from me and went apeshit over it. Why did it make you so upset, though?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The CDC is conducting a survey and thusly still possess all of the problems previously mentioned and this doesn't explain the discrpency between the 15,000 figure and 217,000. Additionally, most surveys on this topic don't corroborate Kleck's data.
And I tried to lead you to water by explaining why your poorly throughout extrapolation of police reports had fail in it. I gave you hints on how to improve your answer. But you immediately tried to dismiss it by pretending my response is all about me not seeing you lacking a word when in fact my response absolutely requires I have interpretted your statement correctly with the assumption you had missed a word.
This is the last time I will respond on this, as well. If you're too stupid to engage in a conversation, I won't engage you.You don't deserve my time.
If you'd actually read, you'd see that they said the following:
In the first quarter of 2013, the company told me, their system detected 7,584 separate gunfire incidents in 30 cities they pulled data from.
Cautions:
1. This tech is only deployed in some neighborhoods in those 30 cities so it is not capturing all gun shots in those cities in its 2013 figure.
2. That was just one quarter.
3. This figure will be a combination of criminal use and DGU.
4. This figure would not include DGUs that did not require weapon discharge.
But if we assume there are roughly equal amounts of criminal use as DGU (300,000 from both based on the research you don't seem to dispute), then we at least something to consider.
14% are reported from one city where a select area was monitored. Of that 14%, we don't know how many resulted in formal cases. Of formal cases, cities' cleared cases figures range from 15%-20%.
That should give you enough to chew on: gun shots appear to be reported less to police than most other crimes.
Regardless, there are 19,000 cities and townships in the US and they have only reached, as of the writing of that article, about 30.
One quarter. 7,584 gun discharge incidents ("26,617 rounds were fired - about 3.5 rounds per incident"😉. 30 cities.
7584 * 4 = 30336
19000/30 = 633.33...
633.33... * 30,336 = 19,212,800 gun firing incidents.
Here are caveats: They were not deployed to even a majority of areas of those 30 cities so those figures are far too low for those 30 cities. In one city, they were only deployed in one neighborhood area, according to the article, so they are clearly missing a huge number of gun shots. However, they deployed to several larger cities so their figures will be larger for those cities. For the sake of moving the conversation along, let's assume that those figures nullify each other.
And before you try and state that they do not balance out, most recent data from their tech:
As of their 2016 report, "The 72 cities that were analyzed had a total coverage area of 305.0 square miles with a median coverage area of 3.1 square miles." This very much strongly supports what I am saying. The city I live in is more 600 square miles so as you can tell, they are not covering but just a neighborhood or few in each of those 72 cities. And in their latest report, they are showing ~74,000 incidents.
So even if we assume half and half between criminal use and DGU, that's still over 9 million DGUs and over 9 million criminal uses and that's just for gun discharge incidents, alone, not including non-discharge DGUs.
Where do you want to set the ratio? 1/3? That's still 3 million DGUs. 1/10? That's still almost 1,000,000 DGU where the gun was actually fired. We are still missing the huge set of data where the gun did not need to be fired but still counted as a DGU.
How arbitrarily do not want to move that bar around?
Also....
First Major Point: Misleading Gun Violence Figure vs. Actual Gun Violence Figure
The video starts with the often dishonest 30,000 gun homicide figure. Removing suicide and accidental death and it drops to 11,000. It breaks up that figure, correctly so, and shows how people dishonestly try to use the 30,000 figure. You said the video was "shit vid" but starts out very well.
The actual deaths are a bit more than 33,000 and gun homicides are closer to 12k so his figures are rounded down in both cases.
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/
First major point: a win for Freedom Toons.
Second Major Point: Gun Crimes per year vs DGUs per year.
300,000 gun crimes committed per year.
Then he goes on to mention the CDC's own research where they corroborate Kleck's and Gertz findings but to a slightly lesser degree. Kleck had it around 1.3% and CDC was knocking on the door of just 1%.
https://www.cdc.gov/brfss/questionn...ues/98brfss.pdf
https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulhs...s/#63478b37299a
https://www.nap.edu/read/18319/chapter/3#15
Second Major Point Assessment: a win for Freedom Toons especially since he uses the 500,000 to 3,000,000 figure to be intellectually honest.
Third Major Point: Effectiveness of DGUs
"Studies that directly assessed the effect of actual defensive uses of guns (i.e., incidents in which a gun was “used” by the crime victim in the sense of attacking or threatening an offender) have found consistently lower injury rates among gun-using crime victims compared with victims who used other self-protective strategies..."
Meaning, DGUs are found to be effective compared to victims who used other self-protective measures.
Third Major Point Assessment: another very poignant win for Freedom Toons because he pointed out that DGUs are effective compared to the initial dishonest point of 30,000 gun deaths.
Conclusion: Your initial statement that the video is shit is a terrible statement and it shows more of an ignorant bias on the topic than it does a nuanced and honest rebuttal to the points in the video.
To summarize: the left essentially just lost the gun debate. Actually they lost it years ago, they just weren't aware of the data. Most still aren't. But they will blindly believe the shit they are told...and then call trump supporters cultists and uneducated. It's actually one of the most hilarious things in the universe.
Womp womp.
You still don't understand the point even after explaining it to you 6 times, now. So you won't get another reply on it.Find me the data set of people that were not incarcerated, were injured during the commission of a crime and did not seek medical help. Otherwise, it shows a sampling bias and confirms there is a correlation (but not necessarily causation) of medical treatment for gunshots and incarceration.
Why does it matter if they were incarcerated? In what way does this invalidate their testimony. Again, there are real problems here, but not the ones which you are mentioning.
It's not. The CDC figures were not really well known. And I had not seen the very well done breakdown by Forbes on this subject until that video brought it to my attention. You took a lighthearted statement from me and went apeshit over it. Why did it make you so upset, though?
The Kleck and Gertz study has been shown in PolitiFact, Politico, CNN, and the NRA talks about it all the time.
1. This tech is only deployed in some neighborhoods in those 30 cities so it is not capturing all gun shots in those cities in its 2013 figure.
That is a large enough sample size for us to extrapolate a conclusion. Polls usually look at only 800 people. But, from that small sample, we are able to extrapolate a rough conclusion about where 100,000,000 people stand. The same idea applies here. 7,000+ gunshots are more than enough.
2. That was just one quarter
That's more than enough time to extrapolate a conclusion.
3. This figure will be a combination of criminal use and DGU.
This is true but I see no reason to believe that the 14% number isn't roughly the same for DGUs as well. And even if it isn't in order for your logic to work, only 0.93% of discharged DGUs are reported. Shotspotter does not corroborate this.
But if we assume there are roughly equal amounts of criminal use as DGU (300,000 from both based on the research you don't seem to dispute), then we at least something to consider.14% are reported from one city where a select area was monitored. Of that 14%, we don't know how many resulted in formal cases. Of formal cases, cities' cleared cases figures range from 15%-20%.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...-s-go-unsolved/
That should give you enough to chew on: gun shots appear to be reported less to police than most other crimes.
Regardless, there are 19,000 cities and townships in the US and they have only reached, as of the writing of that article, about 30.
One quarter. 7,584 gun discharge incidents ("26,617 rounds were fired - about 3.5 rounds per incident"😉. 30 cities.
7584 * 4 = 30336
19000/30 = 633.33...
633.33... * 30,336 = 19,212,800 gun firing incidents.
Holy shit this is literally the worst logic I have ever seen. For one, it assumes that all 300,000 DGUs included the discharging of a gun. Secondarily, it compares survey data to administrative data. We know based on the Gun Violence Archive, how many violent DGUs there are according to police reports. The number is around 2,017. If that is only 14% of all violent DGUs, we get the number 15,000. This is obviously a very rough estimate. But that is how you compile the data. You have to compare shotspotter with police reports. Again, the research conducted was not self-reported rather then administrative therefore that 14% number does not apply in any meaningful when comparing results. I don't understand why you would ever consider compiling the data this way.
Originally posted by Surtur
To summarize: the left essentially just lost the gun debate. Actually they lost it years ago, they just weren't aware of the data. Most still aren't. But they will blindly believe the shit they are told...and then call trump supporters cultists and uneducated. It's actually one of the most hilarious things in the universe.Womp womp.
Surter, I like you a lot, but holy shit this pure partisanship. For one, I've made 10+ essay length posts disavowing gun control. Two, you obviously haven't read the debate is just taking the position which most supports your worldview.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
The Kleck and Gertz study has been shown in PolitiFact, Politico, CNN, and the NRA talks about it all the time.
This has nothing at all to do with my point. Why are you like this?
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
That is a large enough sample size for us to extrapolate a conclusion. Polls usually look at only 800 people. But, from that small sample, we are able to extrapolate a rough conclusion about where 100,000,000 people stand. The same idea applies here. 7,000+ gunshots are more than enough.
It wasn't. Try again. Read, but read more carefully this time:
One quarter. 7,584 gun discharge incidents ("26,617 rounds were fired - about 3.5 rounds per incident"😉. 30 cities....
"The 72 cities that were analyzed had a total coverage area of 305.0 square miles with a median coverage area of 3.1 square miles." This very much strongly supports what I am saying. The city I live in is more 600 square miles so as you can tell, they are not covering but just a neighborhood or few in each of those 72 cities. And in their latest report, they are showing ~74,000 incidents.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
That's more than enough time to extrapolate a conclusion.
I think I finally understand what's wrong with your brain. You take points in isolation instead of in context. You have a major issue with keeping things in the larger picture and seem to understand points in isolation. You've done this so many times, now, that it is a clear problem. This also explains why you just don't "get" things sometimes.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3631576/
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
This is true but I see no reason to believe that the 14% number isn't roughly the same for DGUs as well.
Okay, this will be helpful, later. We agree on something.
So you can agree that of the collected 7584 incidents, only 14% were reported (this is inference because the 14% figure came from one neighborhood area in Milwaukee and the 7584 figure came from 30 cities in a single quarter), and over those, DGUs and criminal use are roughly the same. Follow so far? So you want to say they are about half and half, which is how I treat it later. Why? Because you made this concession already so I am using your point to make another point.
Here's where you went horribly wrong: criminal cases vs. reports to LE. This is why your 15,000 figure was full of fail. I tried to lead you to water but you were just too dumb to drink.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Holy shit this is literally the worst logic I have ever seen. For one, it assumes that all 300,000 DGUs included the discharging of a gun.
You clearly didn't understand what you read. 300,000 criminal uses of guns. Not DGUs.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
You have to compare shotspotter with police reports.
No I don't. Not at all! D😄 I don't have to do that and that would be a faulty comparison to begin with.
All I have to do is show how many gun discharges there are and I've done that. You already agreed that we can assume DGUs and criminal use are equal (I can't wait for your frothing and foaming at the mouth as you miss the context of this statement...it's gonna be fun).
Based on very simple extrapolation, we are now looking at millions upon millions of gun discharges, annually, and almost none of them result in criminal cases. 😄
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Also, why are you mentioning this? I already stated that I made an error. This point is entirely erroneous.
Why am I mentioning that shotspotter, a technology that can figure out when a gun is fired, only includes weapon discharges but does not include DGUs that had no gunshots involved?
Gee, I don't know. Why the hell would I include a statement like that?
Perhaps it's because the point is about DGUs which include weapon discharges and not weapon discharges. We've only focused on just weapon discharges. I've demonstrated how we can extrapolate that data to the entire US and we have a rough figure of 19 million. You already agreed criminal and DGUs will be roughly the same (frothing, foaming, etc).
But you're upset about the implications of it.
Check it out, even if you try to pull the "but I'm only talking about the 14% figure!!!!", then it's still 7% of 19 million. What is that number? Close to 1,350,000 DGUs with a weapons discharge. That does not include all DGUs without a weapon's discharge. So you need only 650,000 more non-weapon-discharges to reach a 2,000,000 DGU figure. This is just based off the concessions you made, alone.
Do you understand how shotspotter has really shit all over underlying point? You do understand that they only have a median coverage area, per city, of 3.1 miles in their latest data, right? They are covering a very small fraction of these cities and their figures are already at 75,000. Based on this, my 19 million extrapolation figure is actually significantly underestimated (this is likely due to the fact that the 2013 data is less successful because they've improved their technology since then. As they get "market penetration", we can see much greater figures as time goes on and that's going to be telling).
Here's a massive conession from me on this point: I think the DGUs from the shotspotter data is not equal at all to criminal use. I think DGUs represent somewhere between 1/4 to 1/10 of the shotspotter data. I also think that DGUs are primarily composed of non-weapon-discharge scenarios. Meaning, the shotspotter data is only capturing a minority of DGUs.
And you're still not addressing my points about the video. You original point was the shit video. And I demonstrated why it is not a shit video. And you are eerily quiet about that.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Surter, I like you a lot, but holy shit this pure partisanship. For one, I've made 10+ essay length posts disavowing gun control. Two, you obviously haven't read the debate is just taking the position which most supports your worldview.
Originally posted by Emperordmb
He could just be saying either way they've lost... which is true...
This was my take, as well. I think DS0 is off base with his interpretation of Surtur's point.
What's lost in the red herring the left likes to bring up (the 30,000 figure) is that it doesn't matter when we are talking about removing people's rights to successfully defend themselves.
If DGUs are 100,000 or 3,000,000, the 30,000 gun deaths figure is irrelevant to the fact that people are using guns, defensively. And not only are they using guns defensively, they are more successful at defending themselves compared to other implements and methods of self-defense.
This is a very big deal and should put this particular debate to bed which is what the gentleman, Brian Doherty, at reason.com suggests. I believe this is also Sutur's point. And like I said, no one really cares about DS0's debate and no one is really reading it that would matter.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Surter, I like you a lot, but holy shit this pure partisanship. For one, I've made 10+ essay length posts disavowing gun control. Two, you obviously haven't read the debate is just taking the position which most supports your worldview.
I understand how you could take it this way, but my post wasn't really directed at you specifically. I knew you weren't arguing in favor of gun control. I should have worded it better.