View Single Post
Old 2013-01-18, 13:14   Link #1091
kyp275
Meh
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by GDB View Post
You realize you basically just said it's impossible to gather the data, yet still demand the data, right? (Note: I don't mean to imply you're "demanding!" it per se, but I can't think of a better term to use at the moment, since "want" feels too weak.)
It's not impossible, rather that it's a simple matter of fact that there are very real differences in the way crime statistics are collected across different agencies, regions, and countries. Add to the fact that there are few organizations that won't hesitate on putting their own "spin" on the numbers, you have some real obstacle to unbiased and accurate data.

The Mexico gun figure is a good example - even though the number of weapons that are confirmed to be from the US is only a small part of the total weapons coming into Mexico, they're nevertheless presented as the source of the vast majority of weapon going into Mexico.

For a basic look on the issues on gathering crime statics in the US:

http://voices.yahoo.com/ucr-nibrs-vs...a-5755964.html

Quote:
That seems to be what he's saying. The military ISN'T coming for you. If it did, then clearly everything you (and the average citizen) knew about the military is out the window anyway and nothing can be assumed.
Naw, seems like he deleted his original comment on it, but the post he wrote later pretty clearly demonstrated that's exactly what he meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kaijo View Post
You still don't understand... if you want to knock those studies, you have to go into them. You didn't even look up those up, did you? How can you diss something that you haven't even read? Talk about judging a book by it's cover.
Thanks for assuming that I didn't read them. Really, have you?

Quote:
If you don't want to accept the numbers, fine. You don't have to. But this is how science works. Scientists study data and publish a paper. It gets peer-reviewed. Other scientists can then go through it and point out it's flaws and publish another paper on it, identifying those flaws. As a scientist, until someone else publishes a paper, or lists ways in which it is wrong, I have to accept. There are tons of papers out there on every conceivable subject, and if I were to just dismiss them because I personally wasn't involved or I didn't feel it agreed with my inner gut feeling, then I'd make a piss poor scientist.
The last thing many of these are are peer-reviewed. If they are, please point out to me on which scientific journal they were published.

Really, I mean, this is from one of the "studies" you've used, by the author, verbatim:

Quote:
"At no point have I ever claimed that this is even close to a rigorous analysis. In my original tweet and here I have made it clear that I have used data from Wikipedia. Since I thought it was common knowledge that Wikipedia should never be used as a primary source for any kind of real research, I didn’t expect people to confuse this post with a serious study."
As for the rest of your drivel which again is little more than insinuations that borders on insults, I'm not gonna quote them here to save space. Suffice to say that you're basically saying "well, someone put it on the internet, it must be true! even though I'm completely unfamiliar with how crime statistics are collected, and have no relevant experience in the field!"

It amazes me that your inclination is to believe everything you see until proven otherwise, when one should always be mindful of information they see online, both of the source, and how they're presented. You accuse me of having a bias when looking at the numbers, yet you yourself have the biggest bias of all - they all must be right, prepared correctly, because...well, because they must be!

Go and read the article I linked above to get an idea on the issues of accuracy on gathering crime data in the US alone. The UCR, NIBRS, NCVS all have their strengths and weaknesses. The most well known and common used by the media is the FBI's UCR, and the first thing any criminal justice professor will tell you when they first cover the subject is that it's not very accurate - it completely ignores unreported crime, depends entirely on local department's own reports with little to no verification, which are subject to variations in how crimes are defined and categorized, and often times are artificially inflated or lowered by the department for political/budget reasons.

I'm not attacking those numbers because they don't fit with my view, I'm just pointing out that it's very dangerous to blindly assume they're correct like you're doing here, because I know the difficulty involved in sourcing those data in the first place, nevermind accurately prepare and present them without bias.

Which brings me to my next point - as esteemed as I place scientists in general (good try on framing me as anti-science ), I have substantially less faith in many when it comes to politically charged (and generally money related) fields. Plenty of examples when it comes to fields such as global warming, fracking, healths etc. When there is politics, there is (grant) money, and with that comes corruption -scientists are still human.

This is not to say that you should dismiss all those number off-hand, but rather that you need to be very mindful of how they're collected and presented. Given what I know about the difficulties with collecting crime statistics, you're gonna have to do better than web articles or studies that doesn't clarify how their numbers are gathered.

Quote:
Not as different as you might imagine. They consume our same media, they had our same economic troubles, they are ruled by very similar laws. This argument that "other countries are too different!" smacks of the notion that we can dismiss any argument or observation from any other country, just because the US is somehow special. That the humans in the US, are somehow worlds apart from every other human.
That's just you perhaps needing to take a few sociology/criminology classes. The social structure of the US is very different than those in Japan, or India, or China. We're more obviously more similar to European countries, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to convince a German or French that they're no different than Americans. Then there are other factors just as religion, racial/ethnic diversity, population density, public service/infrastructure, and the list goes on and on. It's not that the US is somehow special, but rather that every country has their own specific set of circumstances, not one is the same.

I've lived in the US, Asia, middle-east and Africa, people are more different than you imagine.

Quote:
Honestly, Kyp, at this point, it is probably pointless to continue the discussion with you.
If you continue to ignore everything I've kept trying to explain, yup.

Quote:
I'm not an expert in biology, so if someone publishes a paper on cloning that makes a conclusion, I have two options: accept the conclusions, or go through the paper and point out where it is wrong. Since I don't have the knowledge for the latter (like most scientists do), then I have to accept the conclusion.
Uh, how about putting it in the "eh...I'll put that on hold" category? is there a deadline you have to meet on forming a definitive opinion on the paper?

Quote:
So, if nothing else, kyp, what would convince you? What source, or what study, would you accept? Because more than anything else, that is what I'd like to know.
Well, if you're going to indulge me...

First, they must come with a clear definition on the different category, and how they're reconciling the differences across different agencies and countries (for example, IIRC the UK doesn't count rape as a violent crime, but rather as its own category).

Second, the data collection methodology must be clarified, simply having a chart that cites another study whose chart cites another study and on and on doesn't mean jack.

Third, and this is aimed at the specific context of this thread, it can't be a data collection on nothing but gun statistics, but must at the minimum have comparable overall crime statistic to compare to for a meaningful context.

Oh, and obviously from a neutral source that doesn't have a stake in the fight, but have enough money and resource for an comprehensive study of this scale.

Good luck with that one.


Quote:
Situation #1: the populace is armed, and the president decides to sieze total power and sends in the military to quell the populace. Most of the military decides to obey. How well do you think a rifle is gonna against tanks, planes, drones, etc.? Not very well. The battle will only really start when some of the populace manages to steal some of those planes, tanks, and drones, and fight the military on a more even footings.
In the US? HAH. You'll have a military coup instead. The President may be our Commander-in-Chief, but the oath we swore when we joined the service was not of allegiance to the President. If a POTUS ever decides to seize power, what you'll have is a march on D.C. instead.

Quote:
Situation #2: Like above, but some portion of the military decides to side with the populace. In which case, the war will be fought using the military's equipment. The guns we already have, won't make much of a difference. Some help, yes, but hardly the true safeguard against tyranny.
As someone who's patrolled the streets in Iraq, I can assure you small arms makes quite a difference. I'd tell you to go study military tactics and urban warfare... but it'd probably be a waste of time.

Quote:
That is why I don't buy the argument that our guns defend against tyranny. They don't.
Only because you don't have any proper frame of reference due to an apparent lack of knowledge on the subject.

Planes are piloted (and yes, that includes drones), tanks, artillery, or any other mechanized assets are requires crews. We are not conscripts, we aren't mercenaries or secret police working for a dictator. The US military is an all-volunteer force, and while I'd hardly claim that we all joined the service out of some higher calling, I CAN tell you that the majority do feel rather strongly about serving and protecting our country. The thought that we would turn our weapons on our own people to grab power for a dictator is unthinkable, and frankly downright insulting.

Quote:
And I generally find that someone who owns a gun, isn't very active. Expect maybe they have an NRA membership
Yes, please lay on the blind stereotype some more

I guess I should stop voting now, after all, I have guns, but no NRA membership, and I should also tell all my buddies who are the same, I never knew we weren't allowed to be "politically active" if we own a gun!
kyp275 is offline   Reply With Quote