By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Killing Spree in AL

Mise on 12 March 2009

@mrstickball:

Correlation does not imply causation.


From Wikipedia:

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.


Guns aren't the only things that are used kill people, and suicides are still crimes, albeit victimless. And the profileration of firearms isn't the only thing that could reduce murder rates, provided it does that in the first place.

EDIT: Bloody quotes.

EDIT 2: And yes, it also applies to the graph I posted as well, even though the two compared variables are more closely related IMO.



Warning: The preceding message may or may not have included sarcasm, cynicism, irony, full stops, commas, slashes, words, letters, sentences, lines, quotes,  flaeed  gramar, cryptic metaphors or other means of annoying communication. Viewer discretion is/was strongly advised.

Around the Network
mrstickball on 12 March 2009

Mise, you are correct in saying that firearms aren't the only correlating factor in the reduction of murder rates. We also can imply that unemployment and poverty are most likely larger players in the increase or reduction of murder/violent crime rates in various countries.

However, you argued that reducing the number of guns would help. I provided a chart that shows otherwise due to firearms per capita. Feel free to give some statistical analysis that refutes my claim.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Kasz216 on 12 March 2009
Mise said:

@mrstickball:

Correlation does not imply causation.


From Wikipedia:

In other words, there can be no conclusion made regarding the existence or the direction of a cause and effect relationship only from the fact that A and B are correlated. Determining whether there is an actual cause and effect relationship requires further investigation, even when the relationship between A and B is statistically significant, a large effect size is observed, or a large part of the variance is explained.


Guns aren't the only things that are used kill people, and suicides are still crimes, albeit victimless. And the profileration of firearms isn't the only thing that could reduce murder rates, provided it does that in the first place.

EDIT: Bloody quotes.

EDIT 2: And yes, it also applies to the graph I posted as well, even though the two compared variables are more closely related IMO.

See now your argueing his points for him.

Other things can be used to kill people for example. 

His graph is the more accurate because it shows that in the absense of guns, people will kill with whatever they can get their hands on.

I mean, someone with a graph like yours could eaisly make the arguement that we need to ban cars because there are more car accidences in places with more cars...

Or that we should ban little statues of liberty since more people are injured by them in areas where more of them are prevelant.

Correlation doesn't prove causation....

but lack of correlation does prove lack of causation more or less.



Mise on 12 March 2009
mrstickball said:
Mise, you are correct in saying that firearms aren't the only correlating factor in the reduction of murder rates. We also can imply that unemployment and poverty are most likely larger players in the increase or reduction of murder/violent crime rates in various countries.

However, you argued that reducing the number of guns would help. I provided a chart that shows otherwise due to firearms per capita. Feel free to give some statistical analysis that refutes my claim.

Here's a comparison between the US, with lax GC laws, and Canada, with much stricter ones, though it's slightly older. Canada is used here because it has a lot more common with USA economically, socially and historically than the other mentioned countries - and the overall crime rate is actually higher in Canada than in US, since violent crime is a small fraction of crime in general. Canada also has a higher unemployment rate (6% vs. 4,6%).

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Essentially, it states that:

Americans have 3.3 three times as much firepower available than the canadians do per capita,

2.7 times more total firearms-related deaths,

almost fifteen times more handgun murders (the non-gun related murder rate being roughly 1.8 times that of Canada),

and 3.5 times more armed robberies with firearms (non-firearm related robbery rate being about 1.3).

As for the homicides - 66% of american homicides were done with firearms, and 75% of those were committed with handguns. Compared to Canada, where the same figures are 27.3% and 46%, respectively.



Warning: The preceding message may or may not have included sarcasm, cynicism, irony, full stops, commas, slashes, words, letters, sentences, lines, quotes,  flaeed  gramar, cryptic metaphors or other means of annoying communication. Viewer discretion is/was strongly advised.

Kasz216 on 12 March 2009
Mise said:
mrstickball said:
Mise, you are correct in saying that firearms aren't the only correlating factor in the reduction of murder rates. We also can imply that unemployment and poverty are most likely larger players in the increase or reduction of murder/violent crime rates in various countries.

However, you argued that reducing the number of guns would help. I provided a chart that shows otherwise due to firearms per capita. Feel free to give some statistical analysis that refutes my claim.

Here's a comparison between the US, with lax GC laws, and Canada, with much stricter ones, though it's slightly older. Canada is used here because it has a lot more common with USA economically, socially and historically than the other mentioned countries - and the overall crime rate is actually higher in Canada than in US, since violent crime is a small fraction of crime in general. Canada also has a higher unemployment rate (6% vs. 4,6%).

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Essentially, it states that:

Americans have 3.3 three times as much firepower available than the canadians do per capita,

2.7 times more total firearms-related deaths,

almost fifteen times more handgun murders (the non-gun related murder rate being roughly 1.8 times that of Canada),

and 3.5 times more armed robberies with firearms (non-firearm related robbery rate being about 1.3).

As for the homicides - 66% of american homicides were done with firearms, and 75% of those were committed with handguns. Compared to Canada, where the same figures are 27.3% and 46%, respectively.

 

How are canada and the US similiar economically socially and historically?

Because they're on the same continent?  Their histories and cultures are very different.

That site just cherrypicked data they liked and rolled with it.



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 12 March 2009

I was going to say something but it is pointless to argue with people on here.  The only thing I know is I don't need a gun to feel safe.



mrstickball on 12 March 2009
Mise said:
mrstickball said:
Mise, you are correct in saying that firearms aren't the only correlating factor in the reduction of murder rates. We also can imply that unemployment and poverty are most likely larger players in the increase or reduction of murder/violent crime rates in various countries.

However, you argued that reducing the number of guns would help. I provided a chart that shows otherwise due to firearms per capita. Feel free to give some statistical analysis that refutes my claim.

Here's a comparison between the US, with lax GC laws, and Canada, with much stricter ones, though it's slightly older. Canada is used here because it has a lot more common with USA economically, socially and historically than the other mentioned countries - and the overall crime rate is actually higher in Canada than in US, since violent crime is a small fraction of crime in general. Canada also has a higher unemployment rate (6% vs. 4,6%).

http://www.guncontrol.ca/Content/Cda-US.htm

Essentially, it states that:

Americans have 3.3 three times as much firepower available than the canadians do per capita,

2.7 times more total firearms-related deaths,

almost fifteen times more handgun murders (the non-gun related murder rate being roughly 1.8 times that of Canada),

and 3.5 times more armed robberies with firearms (non-firearm related robbery rate being about 1.3).

As for the homicides - 66% of american homicides were done with firearms, and 75% of those were committed with handguns. Compared to Canada, where the same figures are 27.3% and 46%, respectively.

And this proves my point that, although guns do correlate with more gun violence, it does not mean more violence overall. Thanks for proving me right again that less guns = more crime. Also, Mexico would love to have a chat with you, as they are on our borders too. And I believe their crime rate is far in excess of ours, too - half the guns per capita, 10 times the murders as Canada.

 



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Galaki on 13 March 2009

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.
Got that?



Pre-order limited edition Blue Slime Condoms

Mise on 13 March 2009

 

EDIT: Nvm, don't have the time for this now.

 



Warning: The preceding message may or may not have included sarcasm, cynicism, irony, full stops, commas, slashes, words, letters, sentences, lines, quotes,  flaeed  gramar, cryptic metaphors or other means of annoying communication. Viewer discretion is/was strongly advised.

TruckOSaurus on 13 March 2009
mrstickball said:
TruckOSaurus said:

The only thing I get from this graph is that every country's number of intentional firearm deaths loosely follows a pattern according to percentage of household with a gun except for the US which is abnormally high. Why it is that way though, I have no idea.

Here's the issue: We're not debating if firearms cause firearm injuries or death. Of course they do. What we're debating is if more guns cause crime. The problem is that the graph that was given does not provide any data that actually helps that claim. Given the data sets, it's not trying to correlate crime, homicides, or murders to the number of households with guns. Only the number of households with guns vs. the number of crimes comitted with guns. If you have more of something - cars, guns, alcohol, drugs, knives, sports, ect, you will have more accidents, or what not.

That's why his chart is totally moot. Wouldn't a better chart be to compare murder rates per capita, to firearms per capita to see if there's a correlation between gun ownership and murders?

I think you read the graph wrong. The Y axis says "Intentional Firearms Death per 100,000" which means accidents are not included in the numbers on it.



Signature goes here!