kallend 2,106 #401 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteNone of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted. Since there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted. Without using proper statistics, you cannot form any valid conclusion. Your statement is a classic example of confirmation bias. Tests of statistical significance ARE important.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #402 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteSince there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted. No, it is still warranted as it states that restricting gun ownership is unlikely to increase the crime level (including violent crime), while it will reduce at least some kind of crime (most shooting sprees). Prove it. Notice the word, "prove". Not your 'opinion', not conjectures. Proof. Irony score 10/10... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #403 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteNone of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted. Since there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted. Without using proper statistics, you cannot form any valid conclusion. Your statement is a classic example of confirmation bias. Tests of statistical significance ARE important. You seem to have no problems using the crime statistics when they prove your point - care to have me bring up all the time you've mentioned Texas cities in a gun control argument?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #404 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNone of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted. Since there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted. Without using proper statistics, you cannot form any valid conclusion. Your statement is a classic example of confirmation bias. Tests of statistical significance ARE important. You seem to have no problems using the crime statistics when they prove your point - care to have me bring up all the time you've mentioned Texas cities in a gun control argument? So you agree that Texas cities prove my point. OK, but I'd have preferred a proper statistical test.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #405 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSince there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted. No, it is still warranted as it states that restricting gun ownership is unlikely to increase the crime level (including violent crime), while it will reduce at least some kind of crime (most shooting sprees). Prove it. Notice the word, "prove". Not your 'opinion', not conjectures. Proof. Irony score 10/10 I provide references - George provides opinion. You provide studies from anti-gun organizations, I provide studies from pro-gun organizations. I give less than a damn about your 'irony score', perfessor ego.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #406 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteNone of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted. Since there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted. Without using proper statistics, you cannot form any valid conclusion. Your statement is a classic example of confirmation bias. Tests of statistical significance ARE important. You seem to have no problems using the crime statistics when they prove your point - care to have me bring up all the time you've mentioned Texas cities in a gun control argument? So you agree that Texas cities prove my point. OK, but I'd have preferred a proper statistical test. Washington DC proves mine. I've never stated that concealed carry would magically make all the crime go away - you've certainly inferred otherwise, though.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #407 January 9, 2010 Quote Prove it. Notice the word, "prove". Not your 'opinion', not conjectures. What for?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #408 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuote Prove it. Notice the word, "prove". Not your 'opinion', not conjectures. What for? I'm supposed to treat your statements as if they're proven fact? I don't think so, especially when the crime stats don't support it.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #409 January 9, 2010 QuoteI'm supposed to treat your statements as if they're proven fact? Whatever you want.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #410 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteI'm supposed to treat your statements as if they're proven fact? Whatever you want. Ok, so you don't have data to back your assertions - good enough.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #411 January 9, 2010 QuoteOk, so you don't have data to back your assertions - good enough. Nobody has, and this includes you - you cannot prove your case either. I thought it was obvious after the last three-page discussion. So you'll keep your opinion, and I'll keep mine. And we will vote accordingly.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #412 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteOk, so you don't have data to back your assertions - good enough. Nobody has, and this includes you - you cannot prove your case either. I thought it was obvious after the last three-page discussion. So you'll keep your opinion, and I'll keep mine. And we will vote accordingly. The difference is, mine is based on fact. Feel free to look at the FBI UCR stats and Senate Testimony on Youth Violence for examples.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #413 January 9, 2010 Quote The difference is, mine is based on fact. No, there is no difference. Both are based partially on the same fact (crime statistics), which basically shows no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rate. Your conclusion is that "relaxing gun laws will not increase violent crime", and mine is that "restricting gun laws will not increase violent crime". For the rest of the "facts", they're basically interpreted opinions. You do not accept mine, I do not accept yours. You think yours is valid and mine is shit, I think mine is valid and yours is shit. So the debate is over, there is nothing left to discuss - and both of us will vote accordingly to our opinions. The only thing which worth adding is that in past I considered gun issues pretty much the same way as gay marriage - as something irrelevant to me, but if others like it, let them have it. Thanking to local posters (especially Ron) it has been changed, and now I'm much more likely to vote for further gun ownership restrictions than a month ago.* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #414 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuote The difference is, mine is based on fact. No, there is no difference. Both are based partially on the same fact (crime statistics), which basically shows no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rate. Your conclusion is that "relaxing gun laws will not increase violent crime", and mine is that "restricting gun laws will not increase violent crime". That's right - the crime stats don't prove either of our points. QuoteThe only thing which worth adding is that in past I considered gun issues pretty much the same way as gay marriage - as something irrelevant to me, but if others like it, let them have it. Thanking to local posters (especially Ron) it has been changed, and now I'm much more likely to vote for further gun ownership restrictions than a month ago. If any of your postings on the subject had expressed anything OTHER than your pre-defined conclusions, I might actually believe that. As it is... nah.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #415 January 9, 2010 Quote That's right - the crime stats don't prove either of our points. That's why I think voting on restricting gun rights will not increase crime, and might decrease shooting sprees depending on restriction - therefore it is worth doing. Quote If any of your postings on the subject had expressed anything OTHER than your pre-defined conclusions, I might actually believe that. Why should they?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #416 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuote That's right - the crime stats don't prove either of our points. That's why I think voting on restricting gun rights will not increase crime, and might decrease shooting sprees depending on restriction - therefore it is worth doing. Why do you think that, when the stats don't support it? QuoteQuote If any of your postings on the subject had expressed anything OTHER than your pre-defined conclusions, I might actually believe that. Why should they? Just shows that your 'I didn't care about it' spiel was a crock of shit.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
georgerussia 0 #417 January 9, 2010 Quote Why do you think that, when the stats don't support it? Because I think the stats support it. Quote Just shows that your 'I didn't care about it' spiel was a crock of shit. I wonder whether you are trying to pretend that you know what I think better than me?* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. * Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #418 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuote If that is the direction you go this time then so does a car so does a knife so does a can of gas so do nuclear bombs and cyanide gas. What is your point? Well the point here at least is the items I list are everyday items, like guns (only guns are more regulated) How common are yours???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #419 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuoteNone of them shows statistically significant increase in violent crimes, and in a lot of places the violent crime rates are actually lower. Therefore this conclusion is not warranted. Since there are cities in non-banning states that have lower crime rates than cities in banning states, your conclusion is ALSO non-warranted. Without using proper statistics, you cannot form any valid conclusion. Your statement is a classic example of confirmation bias. Tests of statistical significance ARE important. It that is the case, why dont you post the same to old geroge???"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #420 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuote The difference is, mine is based on fact. No, there is no difference. Both are based partially on the same fact (crime statistics), which basically shows no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rate. Your conclusion is that "relaxing gun laws will not increase violent crime", and mine is that "restricting gun laws will not increase violent crime". For the rest of the "facts", they're basically interpreted opinions. You do not accept mine, I do not accept yours. You think yours is valid and mine is shit, I think mine is valid and yours is shit. So the debate is over, there is nothing left to discuss - and both of us will vote accordingly to our opinions. The only thing which worth adding is that in past I considered gun issues pretty much the same way as gay marriage - as something irrelevant to me, but if others like it, let them have it. Thanking to local posters (especially Ron) it has been changed, and now I'm much more likely to vote for further gun ownership restrictions than a month ago. and then you like to ingnore or step on the 2nd Amenedment. Your "opinion" does not have an amendment in the constitution backing it. Does it"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #421 January 9, 2010 QuoteQuoteQuote The difference is, mine is based on fact. No, there is no difference. Both are based partially on the same fact (crime statistics), which basically shows no correlation between gun ownership and violent crime rate. Your conclusion is that "relaxing gun laws will not increase violent crime", and mine is that "restricting gun laws will not increase violent crime". That's right - the crime stats don't prove either of our points. . Maybe you'll both give it a rest, then.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #422 January 9, 2010 Quote It that is the case, why dont you post the same to old geroge??? Old geroge? What is that, a single malt Scotch? A premium microbrew beer?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #423 January 9, 2010 Quote Quote It that is the case, why dont you post the same to old geroge??? Old geroge? What is that, a single malt Scotch? A premium microbrew beer? "America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #424 January 9, 2010 QuoteNo, I just ignore Ron posts That's because when you answer them, you show you have no idea what you are talking about. Still waiting on your lame answer to this foot in your mouth. QuoteIt depends. For example, if a football player wears expensive jewelry, a criminal would likely to go after him, and skip an old lady in a wheelchair. I even provided a link you normally cry about people not giving you. http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/10/02/crimes.disabled/index.html People with disabilities are 50 percent more likely to be victims of violent crimes than are people without disabilities, according to a government study released Thursday According to the study, the first of its kind, the violent crime rate was 32 per 1,000 for disabled people 12 or older. That's compared to 21 per 1,000 for the nondisabled for the same age group. Once again, you are show to be full of opinion but severely lacking on substance and fact. Still waiting on your claim that kids that had guns and drove would get pulled over.... Even though I proved that the Columbine attackers drove not only to shoot, but to detonate explosives. So you have a clear history of saying stupid things and when proven to be full of it...Making some other lame claim. So we have a new trait to your "debate style" 1. Where is your data? Then we provide it. 2. Where is your link? We say it was a book/report/study. 3. I don't have that book/report/study therefore your position is false since you have not provided a link. So we provide links, the name and author of the book he can buy. 4. He just ignores people that prove him to be full of it. But his arguments go like this: 1. I am right, you are wrong."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #425 January 9, 2010 QuoteWithout using proper statistics, you cannot form any valid conclusion. Your statement is a classic example of confirmation bias. Tests of statistical significance ARE important. And you claimed the CDC is one of the few organizations that could do a proper job.... till they did a study and said they could find no correlation between restrictive gun laws and any reduction in gun crime/violence. So it seems you only approve of agencies that come to the conclusions that you support."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
