stop bringing up the founding fathers in gun arguments

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Oops, looks like you ignored this post, yet again. You can keep calling it illegitimate non-evidence, but simply saying so does not make it so.

An article by an NRA analyst that doesn't state where he got the statistics, a link to the landing page for the Australian Institute of Criminology, and a Youtube video trumps two academic research articles with full disclosure of sources and methodology, and an independent article using the AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

My bad. Sorry. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let's go for a third study. You missed the second one dincha?

RESULTS OF THE '96/'97 AUSTRALIAN GUN LAWS

You are completely ignoring the fact that Australian statistics are not relevant to American politics. I went through the second one and it said the same thing.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Where'd I say people can't own guns or that I said the Constitution disallowed it? Now that's a straw-man.

**facepalm** No, it is not a straw man. I was referring to the whole tirade you went on about the word "arms."

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You keep saying the statistics are skewed. I can't seem to find out where that's been shown. Link the researched evidence showing the statistics in any of those studies are flawed.

I swear I am up to the triple digits in how many times I post this damn point, but here.

Originally Posted by Lexical [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I have many posts about the multiple issues I have on the primary statistic that is cited from that study: the number of mass shootings have been 0 since the gun ban. First problem I have with it is the metric is flawed. As Vel, me and others have pointed out that overall violent crime rates have gone up which this metric does not show/illustrate/or even consider while overall violent crime rates does include mass shootings. This constriction of data shown is generally used to manipulate statistics to further an agenda. Also, since mass shootings seem to happen spuriously, it is not a reliable, ongoing occurrence that can be measured from year to year which makes it a weak metric.

Second problem I have is their definition of mass shooting. The study defines a mass shooting as any incident involving a gun where 5 die by gun shot. It does not consider the amount of people injured and does so for the clear purpose to dismiss other shootings. If you do not consider 20 injured by gun shot and 4 dead a mass shooting, then I don't know what to tell you. The fact that they only consider the number of deaths and used a generally higher number than the rest of the world (UN and US use 4 for example) illustrate further tampering of the statistics to further a clear goal.

Third problem I have is that the sample size is very small and its cut off point is in a very biased position. Cutting off at one of the largest mass shootings in history is biased and will skew the statistics. As discussed before, the occurrence of mass shootings is a spontaneous anomaly in societal statistics, thus using a small sample size, you can accent your point unfairly. For example, consider for the years 1990-2000 cattle were fed X and for the years 2000-2010 they were fed Y. During 1990-1996 cattle had an average weight of 750kg, for the years 1996-2000 they weighed on average 700kg, and for 2000-2010 they averaged 725kg. I could say that feed Y is better since from 1996-2000 the cows weighed 25kg less, but that would be manipulating the sample size and is thus of little integrity. The Australian survey you posted does that since during 1987-1996 Australia had one of the highest frequencies of mass shootings in their history by their metric.

These three problems, which are the glaring problems with that statistic, are not my opinion, but common statistical tricks that many politicians and businesses use. I would also like to say that just because it is from a university does not make a study scientific nor does it make it accurate. A professional analyst's report is actually a more credible source than an academic survey in most cases.

[Lexical]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

An article by an NRA analyst that doesn't state where he got the statistics, a link to the landing page for the Australian Institute of Criminology, and a Youtube video trumps two academic research articles with full disclosure of sources and methodology, and an independent article using the AUSTRALIAN INSTITUTE OF CRIMINOLOGY and the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

My bad. Sorry. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I posted statistics from the American and Australian government that line up with his statistics. He is also not employed by the NRA, but he has the title as their unofficial Analyst. I really don't know how to explain this to you, but AUSTRALIA IS NOT THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

[Humerox]

Australia is the only country where we can measure data and determine whether a gun ban will effect a change in mass shootings.

Which is what I'm arguing.

[Lexical]

So you are arguing for a terrible metric? Cool. Have fun with that. When you are ready to have a discussion, hit me up.

[Humerox]

Well...a reasonable person would assume that since there were 13 mass murders by firearm prior to 1996 and none since 1996, that a firearms ban enacted in 1996 might have had something to do with it.

But that's a flawed basis for measurement and all. 13 in 18 years before and none in 16 afterward. Guess we'll need to wait two more years or something.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Humerox]

Then we can call it a 40-year study.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Lexical]

What I love about this is that you can't refute the reasons on why the statistics is flawed so you just ignore it just like I claimed previously which you were vehemently opposed to. Then instead of accepting the argument like a reasonable human being, you resort to ad hominem.

So tell me. How does it feel to be outsmarted by a "gun nut?"

[Vellatri]

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

that doesn't state where he got the statistics

Oops, reading fail, once again.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

a link to the landing page for the Australian Institute of Criminology

Leading a horse to water. If you refuse to drink, it's not my problem. It's all easily available on their site.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

trumps two academic research articles

Who said it trumps them? I never said that the stats conflicted.

Originally Posted by Humerox [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

will effect a change in mass shootings.

Once again, at the cost of greater overall violence. If you don't like the circles, don't keep going back to this utterly failed argument.

[Humerox]

Originally Posted by Vellatri [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who said it trumps them? I never said that the stats conflicted.

The stats in your link say overall violence has increased. the stats in all 3 of mine state that overall violence has remained relatively unchanged or decreased slightly.

If you're not saying the stats conflict, what are we arguing about?