OMFG.. Is Donald Duck Trump REALLY this FUCKING STUPID?!
Like the internet and social media are the cause of the shootings.. DUMBASS it's the FUCKING GUN LAW..
WAKE UP SUCKER!
🇳🇱
@snder Both statements are wrong. it isn't gun law nor is it social media. There is more then enough evidence to debunk either of these claims.
@freemo Could be but I can't see ANYTHING positive about the gun law.. It's just so plain stupid.. How can more guns be safe?
What's your opinion about the guns in the US?
@snder More guns arent the solution, neither are less guns.
One anecdotal interesting fact (not a real point here).. the only time ive been anywhere near a mass shooting was int he Netherlands. In my 30+ years in america one never happened in my town before.
But to answer your question it really depends on how we frame the question. But there are many reasons why, at least in theory, more guns could be better, and many reasons why it could be worse. The real question we should be asking ourselves is: what does the data say?
@freemo @snder
In the USA there were 40.000 (about 50% suicide) deaths caused by fire arms in 2017, compared to 900 (almost 100% suicide) in Germany in the same year. https://www.tagesschau.de/ausland/usa-schusswaffen-tote-101.html
@honigdachse
The right to suicide is a natural and illaniable right as far as I'm concerned. While I do think we should strive to provide mental health facilities and other means to help encourage people not to choose suicide, in the end that is their right, as is everyones right to self determination. As such I see this as an argument FOR guns not against it. If it provides a more effective means of suicide than drinking bleech and perhaps a means that is less traumatic to the person attempting it then by all means, they have that right, as sad as i t might be.
@honigdachse @snder Yea the suicide could have been prevented in some cases. But ultimately having the right to self determination also means having the right to choose if you wish to seek therapy first or skip right to suicide. While I think it is foolish to skip right to suicide it is still their right.
As for the other people who died from guns for other reasons. That is very tragic. What about them exactly? Are you asking me if its sad people died or something more specific. It is most certainly sad.
@freemo @snder There are better and safer ways to kill yourself. I think overdosing on heroine or some other drug will make it way more comfortable.
Killing yourself with a gun or in another drastical and violent way is often a very sudden decision that is not planned beforehand and could be prevented.
Yeah, and the other 10.000 humans died because of stupid accidents with guns or just "normal" violence.
@honigdachse
Well ifyou want to talk accidents instead od suicides, sure. Again if someone buys a gun they know the risks. They are making that choice and have ever right to work with dangerous things that put their life at risk if they want. That is hardly an argument agains tit any more than its an argument against making scuba diving illegal (a dangerous sport).
Now i would agree there is a concern if someone has a gun and is irresponsible putting OTHER people at risk. But thats simple, make such behavior illegal (as it already is. If someone, for example, points a gun at someone in a joking way (prone to accident) this is illegal and would cause someone to go to jail most likely.
Point is NONE of this is a valid argument against guns or anything else that causes accidents often.
@honigdachse
We dont check to see if people are responsible with most things (though i do agree in non-reverse searchable gun licenses that can not be denied to anyone who passes).
Whart it means is once someone starts to show signs that they are becoming irresponsible, as in they act irresponsibly with a gun, then we arrest them. Thats what I said. If you go around town acting irresponsible with a gun, you immediately get arrested (if people are doing their job) and any actual injury would be prevented in many caases.
Same thing we do with knives. Anyone can buy a knife, but if you start walking around outside with it and brandishing it in peoples faces you will get arrested and loose the right to hold it.
This seems like a perfectly reasonable way to treat it.
@honigdachse
As well you should. Sadly most attempts at doing so resulted in more deaths not less. But yea if you ever actually figure out a way that prevents the problem without causing more damage than good by all means, lets implement it.
@honigdachse Im a professional statistician who has delved pretty deep into this topic. Not sure what your talking about. Most countries who have attempted to implement anti-gun laws have had some pretty severe ramifications from that.
Worked in what way exactly, you have to be specific if i am to consider your point.
@freemo Please show your studies that prove that we have more deaths caused by guns in Germany than in the USA. I won't argue with that again if you can prove that.
@honigdachse I never made that claim so why would i show a study to prove it.. im not saying the claim is wrong either. I asked you a question, I am seeking to understand YOUR claim before i articulate any response to it.
@freemo I quote you: "Most countries who have attempted to implement anti-gun laws have had some pretty severe ramifications from that."
So, why is that and how do you know that?
I refer you to this thread. It accomplished two things. 1) It shows why the argument "germany made guns illegal and now we have no gun deaths" is an absurdist argument that makes no sense 2) It analyzes the situation using the sort of real logic me and other Data Scientists use to actually analyze these sorts of problems.
It directly answers your question. It also provides a ton of graphs and data sourced from peer-reviewed sources to back up my claim.
@freemo These very scientific screenshots from somewhere prove everything. I was wrong all the time!
@honigdachse I see your not familiar with how citing peer-reviewed sources work. Each source of data is clearly indicated in most of those images. You can follow the source and verify anything you want. I know as a professional Data Science I always make sure to follow sources and to double check that the data agrees.
Or youc an just put all your effort into being willfully ignorant of the data, up to you.
Always amazes me the lengths some people go to be in denial, i mean the sources are obviously printed on most of those charts. They are ALL compiled from published data sets.
@freemo The provided graphs show data regarding murders with handguns, violent acts, murders or homicide. All four categories are different from each other so you cannot directly compare the data, also three categories have nothing to do with guns.
Maybe a general rise in violence or murder rates. But that could also mean that more crime are being reported which wasn't the case in the past.
@honigdachse Funny how right around when people ban guns in every country all of a sudden people start reporting more crimes in the immediate years that follow... weird.
We call that cognitive bias, when you have evidence in front of you and still grasp for straws to come up with reasons why you still cant possibly be wrong.
Yes it shows a rise in general violence, thats the POINT. If you take away peoples means to defend themselves then violence goes UP.
Its the same reason why no one will ever argue that vaccines are bad just because vaccine related death goes down when they are made illegal. Because common sense tells you that vaccines have a significant impact on your health and PREVENTS other types of death even though it increases vaccine related death. Which is why no one would ever look at just vaccine related death, obviously.
The same applies to guns. If all you look at is gun related deaths well, your argument becomes pretty absurd to anyone who isnt suffering from the same cognitive biases.
@freemo But how do you explain these numbers? https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Germany/United-States/Crime/Violent-crime
The murder rate in the USA is five times higher than Germany. Would more guns solve that problem?
@honigdachse Glad you asked.
In the field of Data Science we use various tests to determine if something is causality. Simple correlation alone does NOT suggest causality, which we refer to with the logical fallacy of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". In order to test for causality we have various tests but the simplest and most effective is called the Granger Causality test. I'll explain.
When testing for causality it is very important to not look at absolute numbers. Comparing simply america's rate of violence to germany, for exampe, means nothing with regards to causality. We would have no way of knowing if the guns cause the violence or if the violence cause people to buy guns. Which is the cause and which is the action? Well thats why we never use the sort of data you just suggested, it tells us nothing about causality.
What we do is we look at how rates of violence CHANGE in the years immediately following a CHANGE in law. If we see a a restriction of gun law, as we see here, consistently produces a rise in violence rates in the decade immediately following it then we know the change in law is the causative factor, particularly when this pattern is repeated consistently in multiple cases.
Its for this reason the data and approach I provided is valid where the one you suggest is easily debunked by those educated in Data Science. The problem is most people dont understand Data Science so they fall into the same trap you just did.
@honigdachse Also to answer your other question. I never said "more guns" solve the problem. The data only shows that when guns are freely available and legal we have less violent crimes. That doesnt imply that people actually need to OWN the guns for it to be effective or necessarily that more guns mean a solution. Simply that laws that allow people to buy guns means less violence. It is possible that simply the possibility of someone having a gun in a crowd is enough to deter a person regardless of how many guns are actually present.
@freemo If you are right and banning guns always results in more violence than it's only proven that violence rises directly after the guns are taken away or forbidden. But what happens if there are no guns in the first place? How are the numbers in later years?
@honigdachse Well there is literally no society on earth that has never had guns. So we cant say what it would be like with no guns of any kind ever. But I thinkw hat you are really asking is "what about in 50 years or 100 years after the immediate effects settle down". So I will answer the second one assuming thats what you mean.
The answer to that is actually more complex and I'd have to teach you a. bit of Data Science to teach you how we can analyze that accurate. I'll try to explain here a little as best I can.
I left out an important part when talking about the tests we do earlier for simplicity sake. Basically we look at the background rate over time and compare. We basically go through a process of first finding the baseline rate of change in violence, then compare to ensure the gun laws are the most significant difference. Long story short, it isnt easy and the process is susceptible to bias since you need to select your sampling in a non-random way.
The best approach we have that is not subject to bias however would be to do what we call regression analysis. It is actually easy enough to do you can sort of eye ball it sometimes and get an idea for what the result would be if you ran the numbers proper. Basically you take all the. graphs I. showed you earlier and. overlay them on top of each other such that the x-axis all line up at the same point, which will be the date the restriction in gun laws passed. Then you look to see if all the graphs have the same shape to them and how far out the graphs go till they diverge. If your doing the actual math you'd average out all the graphs into one plot to get your regression.
Once you get a regression for your graph the shape you get indicates long term trends as well as short term. You can carry out the graph indefinitely.
The next step is you then do the same regression analysis and get an averaged graph for all the countries which passed laws that **reduced** restrictions on guns. Then you would take the two regressions and compare their long term trend. Which is more likely to go up vs down.
Again you can do what i described yourself by eyeballing the graphs I posted. What you notice in all the graphs is you have an initial huge spike, which then later, over the course of a decade so does actually plummet as you suggest. However you notice the graphs never really get down to the levels as low as. they were before the ban, in some cases they get close but in most they stop falling after 5 years or so and flatline pretty high above where they were pre-pan. If you take the long-term trend out ont hese graphs you will, in fact, see that it flat lines after that.
@honigdachse So before i respond am i being clear, your argument is basically "In germany guns are illegal, we have very few deaths by guns, this demonstrates that guns kill".. would that about sum it up?
"In germany guns are illegal, we have very few deaths by guns, this demonstrates that guns kill"
I'm a data scientist by profession. Lets take a look at this assertion shall we.
As a technique for drawing a conclusion based on data its usually best to apply the same techniques to other areas you don't have a cognitive bias in. Then consider if the logic still works or if it reveals some absurdity in the logic. Lets do that shall we....
After the country made vaccines illegal vaccine related death declined. In fact if you compare all countries where vaccines are illegal you will find vaccine related death is almost non existent. But in other countries where vaccines are legal vaccine related death is in the hundreds every year. I think this clearly shows why vaccines kill and should be made illegal.
I think this becomes very clear how absurd that particular approach to data analysis looks. But why? Well that's obvious. If we are considering a tool which has both the ability to save lives and take it then we will always get a fraudulent and bias answer when we apply this logic. Of COURSE deaths by tool X will be near 0 in a society that outlaws tool X. But it is naive to the broader picture. Namely how does the absence or presence of said tool effect ALL deaths, not just gun related deaths, and not just vaccine related deaths.Only then can you get a useful picture.
image - 2019-08-05T151353.317.p…
@freemo @snder The way that works is implemented in many countries for a long time and causes way less deaths.