Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
9185 homicides commissioning the use of firearms in criminal enterprise... and that's a significant enough cause to infringe a constitutionally protected right... vs all of the other leading causes of death in this country...
Your priorities are exploiting tragedy to push legislation and restriction based on the actions of terror? But have no problem with getting in a car and risking life to commute, have no issue with jumping in bed with someone who may be infected with a killing incurable disease, are okay with an obesity issue and sedentary lifestyle, and I didn't even put in the rates of mortality in the workplace...
Slip and fall leads to death in the older age brackets, I don't see anyone championing for preventative measures background checks so on and so forth to address that
I'm failing to understand your side of the argument... what motivates the cause for stricter gun legislation?
Fear? Anxiety? Stress? Ignorance? Indoctrination? With all of the concern on firearms what is the basis of your argument that firearms are such a risk to public health and safety?
Is the end goal to make a society where everyone has a protective bullet proof bubble wrap suit? Reliant on public transportation controlled via government? Banning of recreational activities that involve the possibility of death? Banning industry and employment with the possibility of death? I am failing to understand the whole theory on if we collect every fire arm ban them from production and ban this regulate that... I'm having a tough time understanding this...
Nope. I am saying that as A increased, B decreased. Therefore, A is not directly proportional with B, nor can it be as the slope of A is positive and the slope of B is negative. That's basic math and the definition of "directly proportional."
Bingo. Perfectly obvious to those who AREN'T bad at math.
Quote:
Given the inversely proportional relationship of the two graphs, you can say that increase in A does NOT cause increase in B. You cannot say that increase in A necessarily causes a decrease in B, but you can say for certain that increases in A do not increase B because B has not increased at any time during the increase in A (over the observed time period).
Increasing per person gun ownership has not increased gun related homicide because there has been no increase in gun related crime, but rather a decrease.
Comments like yours help to clarify the mentality of some involved in this discussion...
Perhaps we should start with what laws ARE appropriate and go from there, because this argument of yours is baffling even for me who well understands both ends of the drug abuse problem. I suppose you are likely to put all drug abuse problems into the same category as "non-violent offenders," right? Those killing for drug distribution turf should be as free to do their thing as those lighting a reefer at a concert.
Close?
Not even in the ballpark. If you reread what I said, it was that possession should not be illegal. I said nothing about selling or distributing, although I favor a system where certain drugs could be purchased at legally owned and operated facilities, much like marijuana is handled in Colorado. I'm a fan of Portugal's drug policy, which treats drugs as a medical issue rather than a criminal one.
Last I checked, it is still illegal to kill another person in most instances. I didn't say anything about changing that fact, did I?
You're addressing that to the "Guns cause crimes" crowd, right?
If so, I fully agree. They have never even come close to proving the causation they claim is there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
No, not me. The liberals who are blaming gun ownership for gun homicides and violent crimes are doing that, and erroneously so, as I and many others have already proven.
Correlation does not equal causation. Period.
Quote:
You.
Where is my math wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackwinkelman
Horrible analogy.
Why?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Volobjectitarian
Nope. I am saying that as A increased, B decreased. Therefore, A is not directly proportional with B, nor can it be as the slope of A is positive and the slope of B is negative. That's basic math and the definition of "directly proportional."
Given the inversely proportional relationship of the two graphs, you can say that increase in A does NOT cause increase in B. You cannot say that increase in A necessarily causes a decrease in B, but you can say for certain that increases in A do not increase B because B has not increased at any time during the increase in A (over the observed time period).
That's only true if other factors are controlled for.
All other factors being controlled for increasing the number of bags of chips eaten will be directly proportional to an increase in weight.
However, it is totally possible that a person could eat more chips and not gain weight if they increased their exercise or decreased the amount of soda they drank (or did both).
With all this nattering about limitation, registration, confiscation, taxation etc. I have yet to see HOW any of these steps would be done. Really, how would you get any of these tasks done. Do you advocate violence to complete your goals of disarming the American people. (the answer should be yes) because you would send men with guns to take away guns or otherwise impose your rules. Does that even make sense to some of you? You are really good with that?
Bingo. Perfectly obvious to those who AREN'T bad at math.
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
Why? Are you bad at math?
No. Because I'm not bad at it.
See below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CBeisbol
That's only true if other factors are controlled for.
All other factors being controlled for increasing the number of bags of chips eaten will be directly proportional to an increase in weight.
However, it is totally possible that a person could eat more chips and not gain weight if they increased their exercise or decreased the amount of soda they drank (or did both).
I broke the variables down based on numbers published...
Numbers published by the CDC, FBI, Justice Department...
There isn't a metabolic efficiency or deficiency rate involved in the commission of an implement with the end result of death...
Therefore-your argument of variables has been presented by me, 9,185 criminal acts resulting in the extinguishing of life. Is cause for stricter legislation, and reinterpretation of a constitutionally protected right in vain of public health and safety, with other staggering numbers that give cause for a more significant rise in death at the hand of another whether intentionally or not? I'm understanding that correctly?
Correlation vs causation...
Firearm numbers go up
Murder rate by firearm go down
So then you are admitting that you have arrived to your conclusion in spite of evidence provided, based on opinion rather than fact. Is that correct?
That's only true if other factors are controlled for.
All other factors being controlled for increasing the number of bags of chips eaten will be directly proportional to an increase in weight.
However, it is totally possible that a person could eat more chips and not gain weight if they increased their exercise or decreased the amount of soda they drank (or did both).
Variables can be me masked by other variables.
I am not making a cause argument. All we know for sure is that from 1994 to present, an increase in gun ownership occurred and a decrease in gun related crime occurred. By simple logic, the only thing you can say for sure is that an increase in gun ownership did not correlate with, happen simultaneously with, or cause an increase in gun related crime BECAUSE NO INCREASE OCCURRED IN GUN RELATED CRIME, regardless of input variable.
For whatever reasons, and there could be zero to infinity, gun related homicide DECREASED during the same period that per person and total gun ownership INCREASED. I am not claiming one caused the other, why these graphs are the way they are, etc. But I am saying, and can say definitely just looking at the data is that an increase in gun ownership DOES NOT CORRELATE IN ANY WAY with an increase in overall gun related homicide because gun related homicide DECREASED every year observed during the increase in gun ownership.
There are any number of factors relating to gun related homicide, and all we know about any of them is none correlated with or caused an increase in gun related homicide because gun related homicide has decreased overall since 1994. Nothing can cause or correlate with that which did not happen.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
